Zimbabwe's hospital referral system: does it work?
(17/761)
BACKGROUND: Anecdotal evidence has suggested inefficiency in the pyramidal health care referral system established in Zimbabwe in 1980, as part of its primary health care (PHC) model. AIM: To assess the functioning of the pyramidal referral system in two rural districts surrounding Harare, Zimbabwe, with regard to two common indicator conditions: pneumonia in children and malaria in adults. METHODS: For a three-month period, all complete inpatient records with discharge diagnoses of pneumonia or malaria from three hospitals representing different levels of care were analyzed (n = 227). Data were collected on demographic and patient care variables. The appropriateness of admissions and referrals was determined by an assessment of the severity of illness and 'intensiveness' of care required. Data were analyzed for differences among the three hospitals and between the two indicator conditions. Per night inpatient bed costs for each hospital were also calculated. RESULTS: For pneumonia in children, 56.8% of patients admitted at the secondary level, 53.8% of patients at the tertiary level and 57.8% of patients at the quaternary level were of mild severity. For malaria in adults, 74.0% of patients seen at the secondary level, 81.5% of patients at the tertiary level and 54.3% at the quaternary level were of mild severity. For pneumonia, were no differences in severity between the three hospitals whereas for malaria significant case-mix differences among the hospitals were found. Most patients attending the highest level referral facility were inappropriate admissions who could have been treated at a lower level of care. The majority of patients at all the hospitals studied had used that hospital as their first or second point of contact with the health services. There were large variations in the inpatient per night bed costs between the three hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Using the indicator diseases of pneumonia in children and malaria in adults, this study concluded that this network did not meet design expectations as the central level referral hospital cared for a similar case-mix of patients as the district level, but at six times the cost. The appropriateness of admissions and referrals could be improved by developing or strengthening intermediate level facilities, by changing mechanisms of access to specialist facilities and by training health professionals in community settings. (+info)
Patient assessments of hospital maternity care: a useful tool for consumers?
(18/761)
OBJECTIVE: To examine three issues related to using patient assessments of care as a means to select hospitals and foster consumer choice-specifically, whether patient assessments (1) vary across hospitals, (2) are reproducible over time, and (3) are biased by case-mix differences. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Surveys that were mailed to 27,674 randomly selected patients admitted to 18 hospitals in a large metropolitan region (Northeast Ohio) for labor and delivery in 1992-1994. We received completed surveys from 16,051 patients (58 percent response rate). STUDY DESIGN: Design was a repeated cross-sectional study. DATA COLLECTION: Surveys were mailed approximately 8 to 12 weeks after discharge. We used three previously validated scales evaluating patients' global assessments of care (three items)as well as assessments of physician (six items) and nursing (five items) care. Each scale had a possible range of 0 (poor care) to 100 (excellent care). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient assessments varied (p<.001) across hospitals for each scale. Mean hospital scores were higher or lower (p<.01) than the sample mean for seven or more hospitals during each year of data collection. However, within individual hospitals, mean scores were reproducible over the three years. In addition, relative hospital rankings were stable; Spearman correlation coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.96 when rankings during individual years were compared. Patient characteristics (age, race, education, insurance status, health status, type of delivery) explained only 2-3 percent of the variance in patient assessments, and adjusting scores for these factors had little effect on hospitals' scores. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that patient assessments of care may be a sensitive measure for discriminating among hospitals. In addition, hospital scores are reproducible and not substantially affected by case-mix differences. If our findings regarding patient assessments are generalizable to other patient populations and delivery settings, these measures may be a useful tool for consumers in selecting hospitals or other healthcare providers. (+info)
Paying a premium: how patient complexity affects costs and profit margins.
(19/761)
OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Tertiary medical centers continue to be under extreme pressure to deliver high-complexity care, but paradoxically there is considerable pressure within these institutions to reduce their emphasis on tertiary care and refocus their efforts to develop a more community-like practice. The genesis of this pressure is the perceived profitability of routine surgical activity when compared with more complex care. The purpose of this study is to assess how the total cost and profit (loss) margin can vary for an entire trauma service. The authors also evaluate payments for specific trauma-related diagnostic-related groups (DRGs) and analyze how hospital margins were affected based on mortality outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors analyzed the actual cost of all trauma discharges (n = 692) at their level I trauma center for fiscal year 1997. Data were obtained from the trauma registry and the hospital cost accounting system. Total cost was defined as the sum of the variable, fixed, and indirect costs associated with each patient. Margin was defined as expected payments minus total cost. The entire population and all DRGs with 10 or more patients were stratified based on survival outcome, Injury Severity Score, insurance status, and length of stay. The mean total costs for survivors and nonsurvivors within these various categories and their margins were evaluated. RESULTS: The profit margin on nonsurvivors was $5,898 greater than for survivors, even though the mean total cost for nonsurvivors was $28,821 greater. Within the fixed fee arrangement, approximately 44% of transfers had a negative margin. Both survivors and nonsurvivors become increasingly profitable out to 20 days and subsequently become unprofitable beyond 21 days, but nonsurvivors were more profitable than survivors. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variance in both the costs and margins within trauma-related DRGs. The DRG payment system disproportionately reimburses providers for nonsurvivors, even though on average they are more costly. Because payers are likely to engage in portfolio management, patients can be transferred between hospitals based on the contractual relationship between the payer and the provider. This payment system potentially allows payers to act strategically, sending relatively low-cost patients to hospitals where they use fee-for-service reimbursement and high-cost patients to hospitals where their reimbursement is contractually capped. Although specific to the authors' trauma center and its payer mix, these data demonstrate the profitability of maintaining a level I trauma center and preserving the mission of delivering care to the severely injured. (+info)
Screening for undetected mental disorders in high utilizers of primary care services.
(20/761)
OBJECTIVE: To define the prevalence and detection rates of mental disorders among high utilizers as compared with typical utilizers, and to examine the effect of case-mix adjustment on these parameters. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: General internal medicine outpatient clinic associated with an urban, academic medical center. PATIENTS: From patients attending a general medicine clinic, 304 were selected randomly in three utilization groups, defined by number of clinic visits: (1) high utilizers; (2) case-mix adjusted high utilizers; and (3) typical utilizers (control patients). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The presence of any mental disorder was ascertained by the PRIME-MD screening instrument. Chart review on all patients was performed to ascertain mental disorders detected by primary care physicians. The prevalence of mood disorders was markedly higher in high utilizers (29%) than in adjusted high utilizers (15%) or controls (10%) (p <.001). Anxiety disorders were slightly, but not statistically, more prevalent in the group adjusted for case mix (16%) than in other high utilizers (12%) or controls (9%). Alcoholism was significantly more prevalent in controls (12%) than in adjusted (6%) or other high utilizers (3%) (p <.03). The discrepancy in detection rates between PRIME-MD and chart review for any mental disorder was less for high utilizers (37% vs 31%) as compared with adjusted high utilizers (31% vs 11%) or controls (24% vs 8%). CONCLUSIONS: Mood disorders are associated with a high overall burden of illness, while anxiety disorders are more predominant among outliers after case-mix adjustment. Detection rates differ substantially by utilization pattern. Screening efforts can be more appropriately targeted with knowledge of these patterns. (+info)
The quality of abstracting medical information from the medical record: the impact of training programmes.
(21/761)
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a programme of training, education and awareness on the quality of the data collected through discharge abstracts. STUDY DESIGN: Three random samples of hospital discharge abstracts relating to three different periods were studied. Quality control to evaluate the impact of systematic training and education activities was performed by checking the quality of abstracting medical records. SETTING: The study was carried out at the Istituto Dermopatico dell'Immacolata, a research hospital in Rome, Italy; it has 335 beds specializing in dermatology and vascular surgery. MEASURES: Error rates in discharge abstracts were subdivided into six categories: wrong selection of the principal diagnosis (type A); low specificity of the principal diagnosis (type B); incomplete reporting of secondary diagnoses (type C); wrong selection of the principal procedure (type D); low specificity of the principal procedure (type E); incomplete reporting of procedures (type F). A specific rate of errors modifying classification in diagnosis related groups was then estimated. RESULTS: Error types A, B and F dropped from 8.5% to 1.3%, from 15.8% to 1.6% and from 22% to 2.6% respectively. Error type D and E were zero in the third period of analysis (September-October 1997) compared with a rate of 0.7% and 4.1% in the third quarter of 1994. Error type C showed a slight decrease from 31.8% in 1994 to 27.2% in 1997. All differences in error types except incomplete reporting of secondary diagnoses were statistically significant. Five and a half per cent of cases were assigned to a different diagnoses related group after re-abstracting in 1997 as compared to 24.3% in the third quarter of 1994 and 23.8% in the first quarter of 1995. DISCUSSION: Training and continuous monitoring, and feedback of information to departments have proved to be successful in improving the quality of abstracting information at patient level from the medical record. The effort to increase administrative data quality at hospital level will facilitate the use of those data sets for internal quality management activities and for population-based quality of care studies. (+info)
Discordance between physicians and coders in assignment of diagnoses.
(22/761)
OBJECTIVE: To measure concordance between physicians and medical record coders in their assignment of diagnoses. DESIGN: Prospective cohort series. SETTING: Five hundred and fifty-bed, tertiary-care, university teaching hospital. Study participants. In-patients who were discharged from either the Cardiac Sciences Program (n=125), the Renal Program (n=43), or the HIV-AIDS Program (n=25) during the period May 18-July 1, 1995. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians and coders assigned diagnoses for individual in-patients based on their independent interpretations of the patient chart and discharge summary sheet. All assigned diagnoses were coded using the ICD-9-CM classification system. Concordance was measured for the most responsible diagnosis and for all assigned diagnoses. Difference in calculated resource intensity weights based on physicians' and coders' assignment of diagnoses was also calculated. RESULTS: Concordance rates for the most responsible diagnosis in each program were: Cardiac Sciences [27%; 95% confidence interval (CI)=20-36%], Renal Program (35%; 95% CI=21-53%), and HIV-AIDS Program (20%; 95% CI, 6-41%). Concordance rates for all diagnoses per chart were similar: Cardiac Sciences (20%; 95% CI, 14-25%), Renal Program (25%; 95% CI, 20-33%), and HIV-AIDS Program (29%; 95% CI, 25-44%). Resource intensity weights assigned by coders for the Cardiac Sciences and HIV-AIDS Program were significantly higher than those assigned by the physicians. (+info)
The hospital multistay rate as an indicator of quality of care.
(23/761)
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the hospital multistay rate to determine if it has the attributes necessary for a performance indicator that can be applied to administrative databases. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: The fiscal year 1994 Veterans Affairs Patient Treatment File (PTF), which contains discharge data on all VA inpatients. STUDY DESIGN: Using a retrospective study design, we assessed cross-hospital variation in (a) the multistay rate and (b) the standardized multistay ratio. A hospital's multistay rate is the observed average number of hospitalizations for patients with one or more hospital stays. A hospital's standardized multistay ratio is the ratio of the geometric mean of the observed number of hospitalizations per patient to the geometric mean of the expected number of hospitalizations per patient, conditional on the types of patients admitted to that hospital. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Discharge data were extracted for the 135,434 VA patients who had one or more admissions in one of seven disease groups. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found that 17.3 percent (28,300) of the admissions in the seven disease categories were readmissions. The average number of stays per person (multistay rate) for an average of seven months of follow-up ranged from 1.15 to 1.45 across the disease categories. The maximum standardized multistay ratio ranged from 1.12 to 1.39. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the hospital multistay rate offers sufficient ease of measurement, frequency, and variation to potentially serve as a performance indicator. (+info)
Validation of risk adjustment models for in-hospital percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty mortality on an independent data set.
(24/761)
OBJECTIVES: We sought to validate recently proposed risk adjustment models for in-hospital percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) mortality on an independent data set of high risk patients undergoing PTCA. BACKGROUND: Risk adjustment models for PTCA mortality have recently been reported, but external validation on independent data sets and on high risk patient groups is lacking. METHODS: Between July 1, 1994 and June 1, 1996, 1,476 consecutive procedures were performed on a high risk patient group characterized by a high incidence of cardiogenic shock (3.3%) and acute myocardial infarction (14.3%). Predictors of in-hospital mortality were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Two external models of in-hospital mortality, one developed by the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group (model NNE) and the other by the Cleveland Clinic (model CC), were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: In this patient group, an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 3.4% was observed. Multivariate regression analysis identified risk factors for death in the hospital that were similar to the risk factors identified by the two external models. When fitted to the data set, both external models had an area under the ROC curve >0.85, indicating overall excellent model discrimination, and both models were accurate in predicting mortality in different patient subgroups. There was a trend toward a greater ability to predict mortality for model NNE as compared with model CC, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive models for PTCA mortality yield comparable results when applied to patient groups other than the one on which the original model was developed. The accuracy of the two models tested in adjusting for the relatively high mortality rate observed in this patient group supports their application in quality assessment or quality improvement efforts. (+info)