Relationship between organizational factors and performance among pay-for-performance hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)/Premier Hospital Quality Incentive Demonstration (HQID) project aims to improve clinical performance through a pay-for-performance program. We conducted this study to identify the key organizational factors associated with higher performance. METHODS: An investigator-blinded, structured telephone survey of eligible hospitals' (N = 92) quality improvement (QI) leaders was conducted among HQID hospitals in the top 2 or bottom 2 deciles submitting performance measure data from October 2004 to September 2005. The survey covered topics such as QI interventions, data feedback, physician leadership, support for QI efforts, and organizational culture. RESULTS: More top performing hospitals used clinical pathways for the treatment of AMI (49% vs. 15%, p < 0.01), HF (44% vs. 18%, p < 0.01), PN (38% vs. 13%, p < 0.01) and THR/TKR (56% vs. 23%, p < 0.01); organized into multidisciplinary teams to manage patients with AMI (93% vs. 77%, p < 0.05) and HF (93% vs. 69%, p < 0.01); used order sets for the treatment of THR/TKR (91% vs. 64%, p < 0.01); and implemented computerized physician order entry in the hospital (24.4% vs. 7.9%, p < 0.05). Finally, more top performers reported having adequate human resources for QI projects (p < 0.01); support of the nursing staff to increase adherence to quality indicators (p < 0.01); and an organizational culture that supported coordination of care (p < 0.01), pace of change (p < 0.01), willingness to try new projects (p < 0.01), and a focus on identifying system errors rather than blaming individuals (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational structure, support, and culture are associated with high performance among hospitals participating in a pay-for-performance demonstration project. Multiple organizational factors remain important in optimizing clinical care.

Prevention of pediatric medication errors by hospital pharmacists and the potential benefit of computerized physician order entry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to characterize medication errors and adverse drug events intercepted by a system of pediatric clinical pharmacists and to determine whether the addition of a computerized physician order entry system would improve medication safety. METHODS: The study included 16,938 medication orders for 678 admissions to the pediatric units of a large academic community hospital. Pediatric clinical pharmacists reviewed medication orders and monitored subsequent medication use. Medication errors and adverse drug events were identified by daily review of documentation, voluntary reporting, and solicitation. Each potentially harmful medication error was judged whether or not it was intercepted and, if not, whether it would have been captured by a computerized physician order entry system. RESULTS: Overall, 865 medication errors occurred, corresponding with a rate of 5.2 per 100 medication orders. A near-miss rate of 0.96% and a preventable adverse drug event rate of 0.09% were observed. Overall, 78% of potentially harmful prescribing errors were intercepted; however, none of the potentially harmful errors occurring at administration was intercepted and accounted for 50% of preventable adverse drug events. A computerized physician order entry system could capture additional potentially harmful prescribing and transcription errors (54%-73%) but not administration errors (0% vs 6%). CONCLUSIONS: A system of pediatric clinical pharmacists effectively intercepted inpatient prescribing errors but did not capture potentially harmful medication administration errors. The addition of a computerized physician order entry system to pharmacists is unlikely to prevent administration errors, which pose the highest risk of patient injury.

In-hospital observation after antibiotic switch in pneumonia: a national evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical benefit of in-hospital observation after the switch from intravenous (IV) to oral antibiotics in a large Medicare population. Retrospective studies of relatively small size indicate that the practice of in-hospital observation after the switch from IV to oral antibiotics for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is unnecessary. METHODS: We performed a retrospective examination of the US Medicare National Pneumonia Project database. Eligible patients were discharged with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis consistent with community-acquired pneumonia and divided into 2 groups: 1) a "not observed" cohort, in which patients were discharged on the same day as the switch from IV to oral antibiotics and 2) an "observed for 1 day" cohort, in which patients remained hospitalized for 1 day after the switch from IV to oral antibiotics. We compared clinical outcomes between these 2 cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 39,242 cases were sampled, representing 4341 hospitals in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. There were 5248 elderly patients who fulfilled eligibility criteria involving a length of stay of no more than 7 hospital days (2536 "not observed" and 2712 "observed for 1 day" patients). Mean length of stay was 3.8 days for the "not observed" cohort and 4.5 days for the "observed for 1 day" cohort (P <.0001). There was no significant difference in 14-day hospital readmission rate (7.8% in the "not observed" cohort vs 7.2% "observed for 1 day" cohort, odds ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.12; P =.367) and 30-day mortality rate (5.1% "not observed" cohort vs 4.4% in the "observed for 1 day" cohort, odds ratio 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67-1.11; P =.258) between the "not observed" and "observed for 1 day" cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the US Medicare Pneumonia Project database provides further evidence that the routine practice of in-hospital observation after the switch from IV to oral antibiotics for patients with CAP may be avoided in patients who are clinically stable although these findings should be verified in a large randomized controlled trial.

A systematic review of diabetes disease management programs.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate and synthesize published evidence regarding the effect of disease management programs for patients with diabetes mellitus on processes and outcomes of care. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Computerized databases were searched for English-language controlled studies assessing the effect of diabetes disease management programs published from 1987 to 2001. Two reviewers extracted study data using a structured abstraction form. Pooled estimates of program effects on glycated hemoglobin were calculated using an empirical Bayes model. RESULTS: The pooled estimate of program effects on glycated hemoglobin was a 0.5-percentage point reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6 percentage points), a modest but significant improvement. Evidence also supports program benefits in improving screening for retinopathy and foot lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes disease management programs can improve glycemic control to a modest extent and can increase screening for retinopathy and foot complications. Further efforts will be required to create more effective disease management programs for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Meta-analysis: angiotensin-receptor blockers in chronic heart failure and high-risk acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in treating patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute myocardial infarction (MI) has been controversial, and recent clinical trials provide more information on this topic. PURPOSE: To quantify the effect of ARBs when compared with placebo (with and without background angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors) and ACE inhibitors on all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute MI. DATA SOURCES: Data from original research published through 13 November 2003. STUDY SELECTION: Predefined criteria were used to identify 24 trials. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently collected information on study characteristics and data on all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. DATA SYNTHESIS: 24 trials involving 38 080 patients were included. Analysis of chronic heart failure trials revealed that 1) ARBs were associated with reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.00]) and heart failure hospitalizations (OR, 0.64 [CI, 0.53 to 0.78]) as compared with placebo; 2) for ARBs versus ACE inhibitors, all-cause mortality (OR, 1.06 [CI, 0.90 to 1.26]) and heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.95 [CI, 0.80 to 1.13]) did not differ; 3) and for combinations of ARBs plus ACE inhibitors versus ACE inhibitors alone, all-cause mortality was not reduced (OR, 0.97 [CI, 0.87 to 1.08]) but heart failure hospitalizations were reduced (OR, 0.77 [CI, 0.69 to 0.87]). For patients with high-risk acute MI, 2 randomized trials compared ARBs with ACE inhibitors but did not reveal differences in all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. LIMITATIONS: Comparative economic data between ARBs and ACE inhibitors are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Because ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not differ in efficacy for reducing all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and in patients with high-risk acute MI, ARBs should be regarded as suitable alternatives to ACE inhibitors.

The association between quality improvement activities performed by managed care organizations and quality of care.

PURPOSE: Little data are available to assess the efforts of managed care organizations to improve quality of care. This analysis assessed differences in performance rates between organizations with and without quality improvement activities. METHODS: We reviewed 399 self-reported quality improvement activities submitted by organizations seeking accreditation by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Processes or outcomes assessed in quality improvement activities were linked to corresponding measures in the effectiveness-of-care database of the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Performance rates for managed care organizations with and without quality improvement activities were then compared. RESULTS: The cross-sectional analysis included 79 quality improvement activities from 50 organizations, covering 12 effectiveness-of-care categories. Each activity had a matching performance score in the database. Financial incentives for providers were associated with substantially higher performance rates in organizations employing this type of intervention. Eight effectiveness-of-care categories had at least four organizations reporting specific quality improvement activities for the care category of interest; statistically significant improvements were observed for follow-up visits for patients after hospitalization for mental illness, checkups after delivery, and screening for cervical cancer. CONCLUSION: Based on objective and audited information, the estimated effects of self-reported quality improvement activities were often small and inconsistent. In some instances, the observed effect was contrary to the expected direction. Limitations of the available dataset and the caveats of a cross-sectional study design precluded a number of analytical options. Longer-term, prospective studies are needed to explore further the relation between quality improvement activities and objective measures of clinical performance.

Does disease management improve clinical and economic outcomes in patients with chronic diseases? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and economic effects of disease management in patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for English-language articles from 1987 to 2001. Articles were included if they used a systematic approach to care and evaluated patients with chronic disease, reported objective measurements of the processes or outcomes of care, and employed acceptable experimental or quasi-experimental study designs as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group. RESULTS: Two reviewers evaluated 16,917 titles and identified 102 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Identified studies represented 11 chronic conditions: depression, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, coronary artery disease, asthma, heart failure, back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Disease management programs for patients with depression had the highest percentage of comparisons (48% [41/86]) showing substantial improvements in patient care, whereas programs for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (9% [2/22]) or chronic pain (8% [1/12]) appeared to be the least effective. Of the outcomes more frequently studied, disease management appeared to improve patient satisfaction (71% [12/17]), patient adherence (47% [17/36]), and disease control (45% [33/74]) most commonly and cost-related outcomes least frequently (11% to 16%). CONCLUSION: Disease management programs were associated with marked improvements in many different processes and outcomes of care. Few studies demonstrated a notable reduction in costs. Further research is needed to understand how disease management can most effectively improve the quality and cost of care for patients with chronic diseases.

Which strategies facilitate improvement in quality of care for elderly hospitalized pneumonia patients?

BACKGROUND: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to elucidate which hospital-based quality improvement (QI) strategies are most effective in facilitating improvement in care for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: In 1999 telephone interviews were conducted with 29 acute care hospitals in Connecticut regarding their use of QI strategies for 1,234 patients at baseline and 1,081 patients at follow-up. RESULTS: Hospital-based QI strategies were grouped into two domains of implementation approach (epidemiologic and social influence). Hospitals scoring a 4 in either the epidemiologic or social influence approach (versus a score of < or = 3) experienced a greater-than-average increase in percentage of patients with blood culture collection within 24 hours of hospital presentation. Hospitals applying all four social influence QI strategies showed a greater-than-average increase in delivery of antibiotics within 8 hours of patients' hospital arrival when compared with all the other hospitals combined. DISCUSSION: The finding that an increased proportion of patients receiving antibiotics within 8 hours and blood cultures within 24 hours of hospital arrival when the greatest numbers of hospital-based QI strategies were implemented in suggestive of a possible "dose effect" of QI.

Effectiveness of disease management programs in depression: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The authors systematically evaluated the published evidence to assess the effectiveness of disease management programs in depression. METHOD: English-language articles on depression were identified through a MEDLINE search for the period from January 1987 to June 2001. Two reviewers evaluated 16,952 published titles, identified 24 depression disease management programs that met explicit inclusion criteria, and extracted data on study characteristics, interventions used, and outcome measures. Pooled effect sizes were calculated by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Pooled results for disease management program effects on symptoms of depression showed statistically significant improvements (effect size=0.33, N=24). Programs also had statistically significant effects on patients' satisfaction with treatment (effect size=0.51, N=6), patients' compliance with the recommended treatment regimen (effect size=0.36, N=7), and adequacy of prescribed treatment (effect size=0.44, N=11). One program with an explicit screening component showed significant improvement in the rate of detection of depression by primary care physicians (effect size=0.66); two other programs lacking a screening component showed small nonsignificant improvements in the detection rate (effect size=0.18). Disease management programs increased health care utilization (effect size=-0.10, N=8), treatment costs (effect size=-1.03, N=3), and hospitalization (effect size=-0.20, N=2). CONCLUSIONS: Disease management appears to improve the detection and care of patients with depression. Further research is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of disease management in depression, and consideration should be given to more widespread implementation of these programs.

Effects of previous influenza vaccination on subsequent readmission and mortality in elderly patients hospitalized with pneumonia.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of influenza vaccination on mortality and hospital readmission rates following discharge of elderly patients admitted with pneumonia. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 12,566 randomly selected Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for pneumonia from October 1 through December 31, 1998, to assess mortality and hospital readmission rates from the date of discharge through the influenza season, May 1, 1999. Patients were grouped based on vaccination status: before hospitalization, during hospitalization, or unknown (no evidence of vaccination). RESULTS: Severity-adjusted mortality rates were 22.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.4% to 29.7%) for the vaccination before hospitalization group, 26.4% (95% CI: 20.4% to 31.9%) for the in-hospital vaccination group, and 29.4% (95% CI: 28.1% to 30.6%) for the unknown vaccination status group. Patients vaccinated before hospitalization had significantly lower mortality than did patients with unknown vaccination status (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.70; P <0.0001). Adjusted readmission rates were 42.6% (95% CI: 40.0% to 45.1%) for the vaccination before hospitalization group, 40.0% (95% CI: 33.2% to 46.1%) for the in-hospital vaccination group, and 44.8% (95% CI: 43.3% to 46.4%) for the unknown vaccination status group. Patients vaccinated before hospitalization had significantly lower readmission rates than patients with unknown vaccination status (HR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.98; P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination before hospitalization was effective in decreasing subsequent mortality and hospital readmission in elderly patients with pneumonia.

A randomized trial of an acid-peptic disease management program in a managed care environment.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of a disease management program for patients with acid-related disorders. STUDY DESIGN: A cluster-randomized clinical trial of 406 patients comparing a disease management program with "usual practice." PATIENTS AND METHODS: Enrolled patients included those presenting with new dyspepsia and chronic users of antisecretory drugs in 8 geographically separate physician offices associated with the Orlando Health Care Group. There were 35 providers in the intervention group and 48 in the control group. The disease management program included evidence-based practice guidelines implemented by using physician champions, academic detailing, and multidisciplinary teams. Processes of care, patient symptoms, quality of life, costs, and work days lost were measured 6 months after patient enrollment. RESULTS: Compared with usual practice, disease management was associated with improvements in Helicobacter pylori testing (61% vs 9%; P = .001), use of recommended H pylori treatment regimens (96% vs 10%; P = .001), and discontinuation rates of proton pump therapy after treatment (70% vs 36%; P = .04). There were few differences in patient quality of life or symptoms between the 2 study groups. Disease management resulted in fewer days of antisecretory therapy (71.7 vs 88.1 days; P = .02) but no difference in total costs. CONCLUSION: This disease management program for patients with acid-related disorders led to improved processes of care. The effectiveness of such a program in other settings requires further study.

Physician attitudes toward strategies to promote the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: [corrected] Promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice has been advocated as one approach to improving healthcare quality and reducing medical errors. Data describing the effectiveness of different strategies to achieve this goal in real-world settings are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of selected interventions on the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians selected from the American Medical Association's Physician Master File. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the perceived effectiveness of 7 strategies (represented by 27 individual interventions) and 5 general approaches for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice in 1100 practicing physicians. Respondent exposure to interventions was also determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors that affected effectiveness ratings. Analysis of variance was used to test the hypothesis of equal mean scores across different comparison groups. RESULTS: Of 1,100 surveys mailed, 63 (5.7%) were excluded and 431 were completed (response rate = 41.6%). Mean +/- SD effectiveness scores for the 27 individual interventions on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 2.0 +/- 0.9 (literature received from insurance companies and managed care organizations) to 4.2 +/- 0.8 (one-on-one communication with respected colleagues). Ranges for the 7 strategies were 2.6 +/- 1.0 (patient-mediated interventions) to 3.6 +/- 0.9 (educational meetings) and for the 5 general approaches were 1.98 +/- 0.9 (administrative interventions) to 3.3 +/- 0.8 (provider education). The hypothesis of equal mean effectiveness scores was rejected for all comparisons (P < .001). Frequency of exposure was the only variable to predict effectiveness (P < .001 for all regression models). CONCLUSION: From the perspective of practicing physicians, the frequency of exposure to strategies for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice strongly affects their perceived effectiveness.

Improving the quality of care for patients with pneumonia in very small hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Despite the publication of guidelines for the management of pneumonia, significant variation in care continues to exist. While there have been several published reports of quality improvement projects for pneumonia, there are few data on the effectiveness of these efforts in small hospitals. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that a project implemented by a quality improvement organization in small hospitals would lead to an improvement in care that could not be accounted for by secular trends in the management of pneumonia. METHODS: Medicare-insured hospital admissions for pneumonia were reviewed from 20 small hospitals in Oklahoma (intervention group) at baseline and after feedback. Project intervention included onsite feedback presentations to the medical staff, samples of performance improvement materials, and comparative measures of performance of predefined quality indicators. A second group of 16 demographically similar hospitals (control group) was selected for review during the same 2 periods. These hospitals subsequently underwent an identical intervention with a follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in process measures were demonstrated in the intervention hospitals, including performance of a sputum (P<.01) and blood (P<.001) cultures, antibiotic administration within 4 hours of hospital admission (P<.001), and administration of the first dose of antibiotic in the emergency department (P<.001). These measures in the control hospitals did not change significantly (P =.93, .08, .79, and .52, respectively) during the 2 periods. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in processes of care achieved by the intervention hospitals resulted from activities initiated because of participation in a quality improvement organization-directed project. This study demonstrated the effectiveness of quality improvement activities in very small hospitals.

Physician-pharmacist comanagement of hypertension: a randomized, comparative trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of an evidence-based, systematic approach to hypertension care involving comanagement of patients by primary care physicians and clinical pharmacists versus usual care in reducing blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: Patients in a staff model medical group with uncontrolled hypertension were randomized to either a usual care (UC) or a physician-pharmacist comanagement (PPCM) group. All physicians in the study received both group and individual education and participated in the development of an evidence-based hypertension treatment algorithm. Physicians were then given the names of their patients whose medical records documented elevated blood pressures (defined as systolic > or = 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic > or = 90 mm Hg for patients aged < 65 yrs, and systolic > or = 160 mm Hg and/or diastolic > or = 90 mm Hg for those aged > or = 65 yrs). Patients randomized to the UC group were managed by primary care physicians alone. Those randomized to the PPCM group were comanaged by their primary care physician and a clinical pharmacist, who provided patient education, made treatment recommendations, and provided follow-up. Blood pressure measurements, antihypertensive drugs, and visit costs/patient were obtained from medical records. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients with uncontrolled hypertension participated in the study. Both PPCM and UC groups experienced significant reductions in blood pressure (systolic -22 and -11 mm Hg, respectively, p < 0.01; diastolic -7 and -8 mm Hg, respectively, p < 0.01). The reduction in systolic blood pressure was greater in the PPCM group after adjusting for differences in baseline blood pressure between the groups (p < 0.01). More patients achieved blood pressure control in the PPCM than in the UC group (60% vs 43%, p = 0.02). Average provider visit costs/patient were higher in the UC than the PPCM group ($195 vs $160, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based, systematic approach using physician-pharmacist comanagement for patients with uncontrolled hypertension resulted in improved blood pressure control and reduced average visit costs/patient.

Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness-which ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the published evidence regarding the characteristics and effectiveness of disease management programmes. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Computerised databases for English language articles during 1987-2001. STUDY SELECTION: 102 articles evaluating 118 disease management programmes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled effect sizes calculated with a random effects model. RESULTS: Patient education was the most commonly used intervention (92/118 programmes), followed by education of healthcare providers (47/118) and provider feedback (32/118). Most programmes (70/118) used more than one intervention. Provider education, feedback, and reminders were associated with significant improvements in provider adherence to guidelines (effect sizes (95% confidence intervals) 0.44 (0.19 to 0.68), 0.61 (0.28 to 0.93), and 0.52 (0.35 to 0.69) respectively) and with significant improvements in patient disease control (effect sizes 0.35 (0.19 to 0.51), 0.17 (0.10 to 0.25), and 0.22 (0.1 to 0.37) respectively). Patient education, reminders, and financial incentives were all associated with improvements in patient disease control (effect sizes 0.24 (0.07 to 0.40), 0.27 (0.17 to 0.36), and 0.40 (0.26 to 0.54) respectively). CONCLUSIONS: All studied interventions were associated with improvements in provider adherence to practice guidelines and disease control. The type and number of interventions varied greatly, and future studies should directly compare different types of intervention to find the most effective.

The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Because there is increasing concern that economic data are not used in the clinical guideline development process, our objective was to evaluate the extent to which economic analyses are incorporated in guideline development. METHODS: We searched medline and HealthSTAR databases to identify English-language clinical practice guidelines (1996-1999) and economic analyses (1990-1998). Additional guidelines were obtained from The National Guidelines Clearinghouse Internet site available at http://www.guideline.gov. Eligible guidelines met the Institute of Medicine definition and addressed a topic included in an economic analysis. Eligible economic analyses assessed interventions addressed in a guideline and predated the guideline by 1 or more years. Economic analyses were defined as incorporated in guideline development if 1) the economic analysis or the results were mentioned in the text or 2) listed as a reference. The quality of economic analyses was assessed using a structured scoring system. RESULTS: Using guidelines as the unit of analysis, 9 of 35 (26%) incorporated at least 1 economic analysis of above-average quality in the text and 11 of 35 (31%) incorporated at least 1 in the references. Using economic analyses as the unit of analysis, 63 economic analyses of above-average quality had opportunities for incorporation in 198 instances across the 35 guidelines. Economic analyses were incorporated in the text in 13 of 198 instances (7%) and in the references in 18 of 198 instances (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous economic analyses may be infrequently incorporated in the development of clinical practice guidelines. A systematic approach to guideline development should be used to ensure the consideration of economic analyses so that recommendations from guidelines may impact both the quality of care and the efficient allocation of resources.

Do subspecialists working outside of their specialty provide less efficient and lower-quality care to hospitalized patients than do primary care physicians?

BACKGROUND: Studies show that subspecialists can provide better quality care than primary care physicians when working within their subspecialty for patients with some medical conditions. However, many subspecialists care for patients outside of their chosen subspecialty. The present study compared the quality of care provided by subspecialists practicing outside of their specialty, general internists, and subspecialists practicing within their specialty. METHODS: The severity-adjusted mortality rate and the severity-adjusted length of stay were used as indexes of quality of care. Data from 5112 hospital admissions (301 different physicians) for community-acquired pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage at 6 hospitals in the greater Cleveland, Ohio, area were used in this study. The data were severity adjusted with the CHOICE Severity of Illness System. RESULTS: Subspecialists working outside of their subspecialty cared for 25% of hospitalized patients. When comparing patients cared for by subspecialists practicing outside of their subspecialty, severity-adjusted lengths of stay were longer for patients with congestive heart failure (23% longer; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15%-32%), upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (22% longer; 95% CI, 7%-39%), and community-acquired pneumonia (14% longer; 95% CI, 5%-24%) than for patients cared for by subspecialists practicing within their subspecialty. Patients also had a slightly higher hospital mortality rate when cared for by subspecialists practicing outside of their specialty than by subspecialists practicing within their subspecialty (mortality rate odds ratio, 1.46; P =.047). In addition, patients cared for by subspecialists practicing outside of their subspecialty had longer lengths of stay, and prolongations of stay were observed for patients with congestive heart failure (16% longer; 95% CI, 8%-26%), upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (15% longer; 95% CI, 2%-30%), and community-acquired pneumonia (18% longer; 95% CI, 9%-28%) than patients cared for by general internists. CONCLUSIONS: Subspecialists commonly care for patients outside of their subspecialty, despite the fact that their patients may have longer lengths of stay than those cared for by subspecialists practicing within their specialty or by general internists. In addition, such patients may have slightly higher mortality rates than those cared for by subspecialists practicing within their subspecialty.

Triage practice guideline for patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure: improving the effectiveness of the coronary care unit.

BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding the appropriate timing for transfer of patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure from the coronary care unit (CCU) to the medical ward are often not based on well-founded medical data. We investigated the potential safety and effectiveness of a practice guideline recommending early "step-down" transfer of low-risk patients with congestive heart failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied the use of a practice guideline for 384 patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure in a hypothetic experiment. The guideline stated that patients without any of the following conditions may be suitable for transfer to a nonmonitored bed 24 hours after admission: acute myocardial infarction or ischemia, complications, active or planned cardiac interventions, unstable comorbidity, worsening clinical status, or lack of response to diuretic therapy. Patients with any of the above conditions were classified as higher risk and potentially not suitable for early transfer. RESULTS: Life-threatening complications were 15.2 times more likely (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2, 70, p = 0.001) and death 14.6 times more likely (95% CI 2.1, 68, p = 0.001) if the patient was classified as "high risk" rather than "low risk" by the guideline. The negative predictive value and sensitivity of the practice guideline for detecting patients who had life-threatening complications were 99.2% and 96.4%, respectively. Thirty-one percent of patients with congestive heart failure hospitalized in either the CCU or intermediate care unit were at low risk and potentially suitable for transfer to a nonmonitored bed 24 hours after admission. Use of the guideline would have reduced intermediate care unit lengths of stay from 2.91 days to 2.22 days and CCU length of stay from 2.06 to 2.04 days had it been used to triage patients with congestive heart failure. This reduction in length of stay would have resulted in 172 more intermediate care unit bed-days available per year to accommodate additional patients. On initial review, at least one cardiologist reviewer judged that use of the guideline may have adversely affected quality of care for 4% (95% CI 1%, 7%) of patients. After a consensus among the cardiologist reviewers, it was judged that the guideline may have adversely affected care for only 0.8% of patients (95% CI, 0%, 2.3%), and that no patient (95% CI 0%, 2.3%) would have had an unexpected life-threatening complication because of the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a practice guideline has the potential to reduce the intermediate care unit lengths of stay for selected low-risk patients with congestive heart failure.