Improving the quality of outpatient care for older patients with diabetes: lessons from a comparison of rural and urban communities.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare the quality of diabetic care received by patients in rural and urban communities. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of claims data captured by the Medicare program. POPULATION: We included all fee-for-service Medicare patients 65 years and older living in the state of Washington who had 2 or more physician encounters for diabetes care during 1994. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes were the extent to which patients received 3 specific recommended services: glycated hemoglobin determination, cholesterol measurement, and eye examination. RESULTS: A total of 30,589 Medicare patients (8.4%) were considered to have diabetes; 29.1% lived in rural communities. Generalists provided most diabetic care in all locations. Patients living in small rural towns received almost half their outpatient care in larger communities. Patients living in large rural towns remote from metropolitan areas were more likely to have received the recommended tests than patients in all other groups. Patients who saw an endocrinologist at least once during the year were more likely to have received the recommended tests. CONCLUSIONS: Large rural towns may provide the best conditions for high-quality care: They are vibrant, rapidly growing communities that serve as regional referral centers and have an adequate-but not excessive-supply of both generalist and specialist physicians. Generalists provide most diabetic care in all settings, and consultation with an endocrinologist may improve adherence to guidelines.

Hospital peer review and the National Practitioner Data Bank: clinical privileges action reports.

CONTEXT: The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) is believed to be an important source of information for peer review activities by the majority of those who use it. However, concern has been raised that hospitals may be underreporting physicians with performance problems to the NPDB. OBJECTIVE: To examine variation in clinical privileges action reporting by hospitals to the NPDB, changes in reporting over time, and the association of hospital characteristics with reporting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of privileges action reports to the NPDB between 1991 and 1995, linked with the 1992 and 1995 databases from the Annual Survey of Hospitals conducted by the American Hospital Association. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4743 short-term, nonfederal, general medical/surgical hospitals throughout the United States that were continuously open between 1991-1995 and registered with the NPDB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Reporting of 1 or more privileges actions during the 5-year study period and (2) privileges action reporting rates (numbers of actions reported per 100000 admissions). RESULTS: Study hospitals reported 3328 privileges actions between 1991 and 1995; 34.2% reported 1 or more actions during the period. The range of privileges action reporting rates for these hospitals was 0.40 to 52.27 per 100000 admissions, with an overall rate of 2.36 per 100000 admissions. The proportion of hospitals reporting an action decreased from 11.6% in 1991 to 10.0% in 1995 (P=.008). After adjustment for other factors, urban hospitals had significantly higher reporting than rural hospitals (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.21 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.43]), while members of the Council of Teaching Hospitals of the Association of American Medical Colleges had significantly lower reporting than nonmembers (adjusted OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.40-0.73]). There were notable regional differences in reporting, with the east south Central region having the lowest rate per 100000 admissions (1.49 [95% CI, 1.33-1.65]). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate a low and declining level of hospital privileges action reporting to the NPDB. Several potential explanations exist, 1 of which is that the information reported to the NPDB is incomplete.

Influence of provider characteristics and insurance status on maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein screening.

BACKGROUND: The maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein test (MSAFP) was developed to screen for neural tube defects. Little is known about the adoption of the MSAFP test. This study examines the effect of provider specialty and geographic location and patient insurance status on MSAFP test use in Washington State. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of MSAFP use in low-risk obstetric patients of five provider groups. MSAFP use was examined for Medicaid and privately insured patients, as well as for the patients of the five provider types. RESULTS: Patients of urban and rural obstetrician-gynecologists were most likely to have MSAFP testing (80.4 percent and 77.0 percent, respectively); patients of urban certified nurse midwives and rural family physicians were least likely to have MSAFP testing (64.2 percent and 62.2 percent, respectively). Patients of certified nurse midwives were more likely to decline MSAFP testing when offered (26.1 percent). Medicaid-insured women were significantly less likely to have MSAFP testing than privately insured women (60.5 percent versus 79.1 percent, P < or = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Providers and patients did not uniformly use MSAFP screening. Efforts should be made to ensure that all patients are adequately informed of screening tests for neural tube defects.

How well do birth certificates describe the pregnancies they report? The Washington State experience with low-risk pregnancies.

OBJECTIVES: Birth certificates are a major source of population-based data on maternal and perinatal health, but their value depends on the accuracy of the data. This study assesses the validity of information recorded on the birth certificates for women in Washington State who were considered to be low risk at entry into care. METHODS: Birth certificates were matched to data abstracted from prenatal and intrapartum clinic and hospital records of a sample of 1937 Washington State obstetrical patients who were considered to be low risk at the beginning of their pregnancies. Accuracy of a variety of pregnancy characteristics (e.g., complications, procedures) on the birth certificate was analyzed using percentage agreement and sensitivity with record abstracts as the "gold standard." Next, we weighted the data from each source to produce estimates of pregnancy characteristics in the population. We compared these estimates from the two data sources to see whether they provide similar pictures of this subpopulation. RESULTS: Missing data for specific items on the birth certificates ranged from 0% to 24%. The birth certificate accurately captured gravidity and parity, but was less likely to report prenatal and intrapartum complications. The population estimates of the two data sources were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Because birth certificates significantly underestimated the complications of pregnancies, number of interventions, number of procedures, and prenatal visits, use of these data for health policy development or resource allocation should be tempered with caution.