RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To develop a patient risk adjustment model for experience of care (EOC) quality measures for long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) that includes mode of survey administration. To assess presence of nonresponse bias in the adjusted facility-level scores. DESIGN: We tested 3 modes of collecting the EOC data: mail-only, mixed (ie, mail with telephone follow-up), and in-facility. This study used sequential modeling and impact analysis, specified a risk and mode adjustment model, and evaluated presence of nonresponse after adjustment. SETTING: LTCHs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=1364) and 69 LTCHs. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk and mode adjusted responses to 28 survey questions and 6 facility-level scores derived from survey responses. RESULTS: Mode of data collection and patient risk variables (age, sex, overall health, overall mental health, marital status, education, race, and whether a proxy responded) were included in the model. Clinical variables were not significant. The in-facility mode was associated with significantly higher performance scores than the other modes. When the recommended risk and mode adjustment model was applied, nonresponse bias was not observed in any mode. CONCLUSIONS: LTCH EOC data should be adjusted for patient risk variables including mode of data collection.
Asunto(s)
Recolección de Datos/métodos , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Cuidados a Largo Plazo , Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Sesgo , Femenino , Hospitales Urbanos , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis de Regresión , Ajuste de Riesgo , Factores Sexuales , Estados Unidos , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess barriers to and quality of care received by diabetic pregnant women from obstetrician-gynecologists. STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire was mailed to 1,000 representative practicing Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 74 did not treat pregnant patients and 510 (55.1%) returned completed surveys. Respondents were divided into 3 groups: maternal-fetal medicine specialists, physicians with high minority/low insurance patient populations, and physicians with low minority/ high insurance patient populations. RESULTS: Reported preconception and prenatal care was generally consistent with guidelines. Regarding gestational diabetes mellitus patients the 3 physician groups differed in assessing postpartum glycemic status, counseling about lifestyle changes, and counseling patients to consult a doctor before their next pregnancy. Patient demographics and perceived barriers to care were similar between maternal-fetal medicine specialists and physicians with high minority/low insurance patient populations. These two physician groups were more likely to agree that lack of educational materials, arranging specialist referrals, patient compliance with recommendations, and patients' ability to afford healthful food were barriers to quality care. CONCLUSION: According to physician self-report, pregnant diabetic patients with access to an obstetrician receive quality care regardless of insurance status. Postpartum care is more variable. Physicians with high minority/low insurance patient populations may lack access to resources.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus/terapia , Adhesión a Directriz , Ginecología/normas , Obstetricia/normas , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/normas , Embarazo en Diabéticas/terapia , Actitud Frente a la Salud , Glucemia , Peso Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus/sangre , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Diabetes Gestacional/terapia , Dieta/economía , Consejo Dirigido , Ejercicio Físico , Femenino , Humanos , Seguro de Salud , Estilo de Vida , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cooperación del Paciente , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Atención Posnatal/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Atención Preconceptiva/normas , Embarazo , Atención Prenatal/normas , Derivación y Consulta , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
To begin to resolve conflicts among current competing taxonomies of child and adolescent psychopathology, the authors developed an interview covering the symptoms of anxiety, depression, inattention, and disruptive behavior used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 1992), and several implicit taxonomies. This interview will be used in the future to compare the internal and external validity of alternative taxonomies. To provide an informative framework for future hypothesis-testing studies, the authors used principal factor analysis to induce new testable hypotheses regarding the structure of this item pool in a representative sample of 1,358 children and adolescents ranging in age from 4 to 17 years. The resulting hypotheses differed from the DSM-IV, particularly in suggesting that some anxiety symptoms are part of the same syndrome as depression, whereas separation anxiety, fears, and compulsions constitute a separate anxiety dimension.