Prevalence of web analytics technology on hospital websites in the United States of America (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Robinson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Critical Access Hospitals ◽  
Web Analytics ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Web analytics are used on the majority of all high traffic web sites. These technologies are used to measure and enhance the impact of advertising and to create web visitor profiles of individual internet users. Visitor behavioral data collected by web analytics forms the foundation of the advertising ecosystem that generates revenue for technology companies such as Google and Facebook. The potential impacts of web analytics technology on healthcare are significant. Gaining a better understanding of the prevalence and characteristics of web analytics technology use on hospital websites is an important first step to understand the scope of this challenge. OBJECTIVE Determine the prevalence of web analytics use on hospital websites in the United States. METHODS An observational study on hospital websites in the United States was conducted obtaining website information for all general and critical access hospitals from the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) compiled by the Department of Homeland Security. These websites were then analyzed with the BuiltWith web technology analysis tool (BuiltWith Pty Ltd, Sidney, Australia, www.builtwith.com) to determine what web analytics products were active on hospital websites. Results were exported to a spreadsheet for data analysis. RESULTS Data from 4,829 hospital websites was analyzed. Web analytics technology was found on 78% of all hospital websites, with a range of 0 to 34 analytics products installed on a hospital website. The most common analytics technology installed was Google Universal Analytics, found on 62% of hospital websites. Comparisons between general acute care and critical access hospitals shows a higher prevalence (81% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) and mean number (4.49 vs. 2.56, p < 0.001) of web analytics products on general acute care hospital websites. Google is the dominant provider of web analytics for general acute care and critical access hospitals (75% vs. 61%, p < 0.001). Facebook is a distant second place provider with 31% and 13% respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Web analytics technology, predominately in the form of Google services, is extremely common on the websites of public hospitals in the United States. Further research is required to determine how the use of this technology may impact healthcare and the public. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

scholarly journals 566. Reduction of Hospital-Onset Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Bacteremia in an Acute Care Hospital: Impact of Bundles and Universal Decolonization

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S268-S268
Author(s):  
Adriana Jimenez ◽  
Kathleen Sposato ◽  
Alicia de Leon-Sanchez ◽  
Regina Williams ◽  
Reynande Francois ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
The United States ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Icu Patients ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Contact Precautions ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background MRSA is a major concern for hospitalized patients in the United States. Hospital-Onset (HO) MRSA bacteremia is used as a proxy measurement of MRSA healthcare acquisition, exposure, and infection burden. HO MRSA bacteremia standardized infection ratio (SIR) is used by several national agencies as a quality report metric. Our institution had more than expected HO MRSA bacteremia cases despite several interventions. We describe the impact of a bundle of interventions aimed to decrease HO MRSA bacteremia in an acute care facility. Methods This quality improvement project was implemented in a 380-bed community hospital in Miami, FL from January 2015 to March 2019. HO MRSA bacteremia was defined as non-duplicate MRSA isolated from a blood culture collected >3 days after admission. SIR was calculated dividing the number of observed events by the number of predicted events; predicted events were obtained from the NHSN report. During baseline period (Figure1 Phase 1 January 2015–August 2016) all adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) were screened for MRSA nasal colonization on admission and weekly thereafter, ICU patients received daily Chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing, and colonized/infected patients with MRSA were placed in contact precautions. In Phase 2 (September 2016–June 2017)daily CHG bathing was switched from 2% wipes to 4% soap foam and expanded to all adult patients; ICU patients also received nasal decolonization with mupirocin. Nasal mupirocin in ICU was replaced with alcohol-based nasal sanitizer for all adult units in July 2017 (Phase 3). In April 2017 we discontinued using contact precautions for MRSA patients; nasal surveillance cultures were discontinued in October 2017. In May 2018 (Phase 4) we introduced alcohol-based wipes for patient hand hygiene at the bedside. SIR were compared by exact binomial test. Results We observed 48 HO MRSA bacteremia cases during the study period. The SIR decreased from 3.66 to 0.97 from baseline to postintervention periods (P = 0.003). The largest decrease in cases and SIR was attained using combined hospital-wide daily CHG bathing, alcohol-based nasal sanitizer, and alcohol wipes for patient hand hygiene during Phase 4 (Table 1). Conclusion Our bundle of interventions for universal decolonization was successful in decreasing HO MRSA bacteremia. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Abstract 367: Comparison of the Healthcare Systems of the United States and Portugal: Epidemiology and Management of Coronary Heart Disease

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana F Lobo ◽  
Vanessa Azzone ◽  
Bruno Melica ◽  
Alberto Freitas ◽  
Francisco R Gonçalves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Public Hospitals ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
The Us

Objectives: Adoption of health technologies may yield significant individual and societal benefits. Because different healthcare systems vary in their adoption speeds, an understanding of the underlying healthcare system is critical. We compared the United States (US) and Portugal (PT) healthcare systems focusing on coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD remains one of the main causes of death in high-income countries with significant economic costs. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature review based on publications from national governmental bodies, international institutional organizations, professional associations, and scientific journals. We abstracted information regarding risk factors, incidence, access to health technologies, and hospital mortality rates in CHD observed between 2000 and 2011. Findings: The prevalence of obesity and high cholesterol levels is higher in the US while higher rates of hypertension and tobacco consumption prevail in PT. The 2009 incidence of cardiovascular disease per 100000 population in the US is 1944.5 versus 1320.4 in PT. The percentage of total health expenditure financed through public funds is 48.2% in the US versus 65.8% in PT. Public hospitals represent 26% (1526 of 5754) of US hospitals and 55% (129 of 231) of hospitals in PT. Between 2000 and 2011, the average high-risk device approval time was 43 months quicker in the European Union (EU) compared to the US. Drug-eluting stents were approved in 2002 in the EU and in PT versus 2003 in the US. Speeds of approval for pharmaceuticals vary – prasugrel, and ticagrelor were approved 5 and 8 months faster in PT compared to the US but PT approval of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was slower (18 months slower on average). However, US CHD standardized mortality is more than twice that of PT (126.5 vs 59.4 per 100000). Conclusions: Procedure and new technology use differ dramatically between the two healthcare systems for CHD care. Portugal offers an interesting contrast to the US for studies focusing on health technologies adoption, diffusion, cost-effectiveness and determinants of outcomes in the realm of CHD. How these factors directly impact patient outcomes remains unknown and deserves further investigation.

Sharp-Device Injuries to Hospital Staff Nurses in 4 Countries

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean P. Clarke ◽  
Maria Schubert ◽  
Thorsten Körner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Acute Care Hospital ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
The United States ◽  
Staff Nurses ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Injury Rates ◽  
The Past ◽  
Hospital Staff Nurses

Objective.To compare sharp-device injury rates among hospital staff nurses in 4 Western countries.Design.Cross-sectional survey.Setting.Acute-care hospital nurses in the United States (Pennsylvania), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario), the United Kingdom (England and Scotland), and Germany.Participants.A total of 34,318 acute-care hospital staff nurses in 1998-1999.Results.Survey-based rates of retrospectively-reported needlestick injuries in the previous year for medical-surgical unit nurses ranged from 146 injuries per 1,000 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in the US sample to 488 injuries per 1,000 FTEs in Germany. In the United States and Canada, very high rates of sharp-device injury among nurses working in the operating room and/or perioperative care were observed (255 and 569 injuries per 1,000 FTEs per year, respectively). Reported use of safety-engineered sharp devices was considerably lower in Germany and Canada than it was in the United States. Some variation in injury rates was seen across nursing specialties among North American nurses, mostly in line with the frequency of risky procedures in the nurses' work.Conclusions.Studies conducted in the United States over the past 15 years suggest that the rates of sharp-device injuries to front-line nurses have fallen over the past decade, probably at least in part because of increased awareness and adoption of safer technologies, suggesting that regulatory strategies have improved nurse safety. The much higher injury rate in Germany may be due to slow adoption of safety devices. Wider diffusion of safer technologies, as well as introduction and stronger enforcement of occupational safety and health regulations, are likely to decrease sharp-device injury rates in various countries even further.

scholarly journals 1651. The Impact of the 2017–2018 Influenza Season on Acute Care Hospitals in the United States: A Qualitative Evaluation of Immediate Responses and Future Preparedness

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. S603-S604
Author(s):  
Gavin H Harris ◽  
Kimberly J Rak ◽  
Jeremy M Kahn ◽  
Derek C Angus ◽  
Erin A Caplan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Influenza Season ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Annual Reports ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The 2017–2018 influenza season was characterized by high illness severity, wide geographic spread, and prolonged duration compared with recent years in the United States – resulting in an increased number of emergency department evaluations and hospital admissions. The current study explored how US hospitals perceived the impact of influenza during this time period, including effects on patient volumes, ways in which hospitals responded, and how lessons learned were incorporated into future influenza preparedness. Methods We conducted semi-structured phone interviews with capacity management personnel in short-term acute care hospitals across the United States. A random hospital sample was created using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services annual reports. Hospitals self-identified key informants who were involved with throughput and capacity. The interview guide was developed and pilot tested by a team of clinicians and qualitative researchers, with interviews conducted between April 2018 and January 2019. We performed thematic content analysis to identify how hospitals experienced the 2017–2018 influenza season. Results We achieved thematic saturation after 53 interviews. Responses conformed to three thematic domains: impacts on staff and patient care, immediate staffing and capacity responses, and future preparedness (Table 1). Hospitals almost universally reported increased emergency department and inpatient volumes that frequently resulted in strain across the hospital. Strain was created by both increased patient volume and staff shortages due to influenza illness. As strategies to address strain, respondents reported the use of new protocols, new vaccination policies, additional staffing, suspected-influenza treatment areas, and more frequent hospital administration meetings. Many hospitals reported increased diversion time. Despite experiencing high levels of strain, some hospitals reported no changes to their future influenza preparation plans. Conclusion Acute care hospitals experienced significant strain as a result of the 2017–2018 influenza season. Hospitals implemented a range of immediate responses to seasonal influenza, but generally did not report future planning specific to influenza. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Patient Perception of Pain Care in the United States: A 5-Year Comparative Analysis of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems

2014 ◽  
Vol 5;17 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 369-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Gupta
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Access Hospitals ◽  
Hospital Type ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Hospital Consumer Assessment ◽  
Consumer Assessment

Background: The necessity of aggressive pain management in the hospital setting is becoming increasingly evident. It has been shown to improve patient outcomes, and is now an avenue for Medicare to assess reimbursement. In this cohort analysis, we compared the March 2008 to the December 2012 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (HCAHPS) reports in order to determine if pain management has improved in the United States after this national standardized survey was created. Objective: To evaluate whether pain perception would improve in the 2012 report relative to the 2008 report. Study Design: Statistical analyses were conducted with the HCAHPS report to compare pain control in regards to hospital type, hospital ownership, and individual hospitals. Using the question, “How often is your pain controlled?,” T-tests were used to compare each hospital type. Hospital ownerships were assessed via analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing. T-tests were conducted to track the difference of hospital performance between the 2008 and the 2012 report. Paired management data were obtained from hospitals that participated in both reports and were assessed using paired T-tests. Setting: This survey was administered to a random sample of adult inpatients between 48 hours and 6 weeks after discharge from any hospital reporting to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) across the US. Limitations: Limitations of this study include response bias, recall bias, and there may be bias related to types of people likely to respond to a survey, but this is inherent to data that is collected on a voluntary response. Additionally, a 3% increase in the number of patients rating their pain as always well-controlled, while statistically significant, admittedly may not be clinically significant. In addition, the raw data collected is adjusted for the effects of patient-mix. The statistical analyses performed to derive the final quarterly HCAHPS reports are unavailable to us and therefore we cannot comment on how individual factors such as age, sex, race, and education or the interaction of the aforementioned affect responses about the patient’s perception on how well their pain was controlled between 2008 and 2012. Results: Two thousand three hundred and ninety five hospitals reported pain management data in both 2008 and 2012. In 2012, hospitals improved their ability to “always control a patients pain” by 3.07% (P < 0.0001) in comparison to the baseline March 2008 report, which was statistically significant. According to the 2012 data, the discrepancy in pain management between acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals was 3.33% which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Government hospitals were shown to manage pain better at baseline, but all 3 types of ownership improved their pain scores between the 2 reports which was shown to be statistically significant (P < 0.01). Discussion: The HCAHPS survey is a national public standardized report used as a way to compare care in the United States. Patient pain perception has improved between the 2008 and 2012 reports. Further studies are needed to evaluate critical care hospitals. Key words: HCAHPS, pain scores, patient perception, national comparison of hospitals, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), acute care hospitals, critical access hospitals, pain management:

Admission Surveillance for Carbapenamase-Producing Enterobacteriaceae at a Long-Term Acute Care Hospital

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 832-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica D. Lewis ◽  
Matthew Bishop ◽  
Brenda Heon ◽  
Amy J. Mathers ◽  
Kyle B. Enfield ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Acute Care Hospital ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
The United States ◽  
Routine Screening ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
High Prevalence

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) are of increasing prevalence worldwide, and long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) have been implicated in several outbreaks in the United States. This prospective study of routine screening for CPE on admission to a LTACH demonstrates a high prevalence of CPE colonization in central Virginia.

The First New Delhi Metallo-β-lactamase (NDM-1) Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Outbreak Identified in the United States in an Acute Care Hospital

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. S67
Author(s):  
Kathleen Lucente ◽  
Kathleen Francis ◽  
Olarae Giger ◽  
Hillary Cooper ◽  
Connie Cutler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pseudomonas Aeruginosa ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Acute Care Hospital ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Care Hospital

scholarly journals A comparison of quality of care indicators in urban acute care hospitals and rural critical access hospitals in the United States

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. N. Lutfiyya ◽  
D. K. Bhat ◽  
S. R. Gandhi ◽  
C. Nguyen ◽  
V. L. Weidenbacher-Hoper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Access Hospitals

scholarly journals Estimated number of N95 respirators needed for healthcare workers in acute-care hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Patrick T. Wedlock ◽  
Kelly J. O’Shea ◽  
Madellena Conte ◽  
Sarah M. Bartsch ◽  
Samuel L. Randall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Acute Care Hospital ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Single Use ◽  
N95 Respirators ◽  
Admission Prevalence

Abstract Objective: Due to shortages of N95 respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is necessary to estimate the number of N95s required for healthcare workers (HCWs) to inform manufacturing targets and resource allocation. Methods: We developed a model to determine the number of N95 respirators needed for HCWs both in a single acute-care hospital and the United States. Results: For an acute-care hospital with 400 all-cause monthly admissions, the number of N95 respirators needed to manage COVID-19 patients admitted during a month ranges from 113 (95% interpercentile range [IPR], 50–229) if 0.5% of admissions are COVID-19 patients to 22,101 (95% IPR, 5,904–25,881) if 100% of admissions are COVID-19 patients (assuming single use per respirator, and 10 encounters between HCWs and each COVID-19 patient per day). The number of N95s needed decreases to a range of 22 (95% IPR, 10–43) to 4,445 (95% IPR, 1,975–8,684) if each N95 is used for 5 patient encounters. Varying monthly all-cause admissions to 2,000 requires 6,645–13,404 respirators with a 60% COVID-19 admission prevalence, 10 HCW–patient encounters, and reusing N95s 5–10 times. Nationally, the number of N95 respirators needed over the course of the pandemic ranges from 86 million (95% IPR, 37.1–200.6 million) to 1.6 billion (95% IPR, 0.7–3.6 billion) as 5%–90% of the population is exposed (single-use). This number ranges from 17.4 million (95% IPR, 7.3–41 million) to 312.3 million (95% IPR, 131.5–737.3 million) using each respirator for 5 encounters. Conclusions: We quantified the number of N95 respirators needed for a given acute-care hospital and nationally during the COVID-19 pandemic under varying conditions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document