Inpatient costs, length of stay, and mortality for cerebrovascular events in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Accurate estimates of inpatient cost, length of stay (LOS), and mortality are necessary for the development of economic models to estimate the cost-effectiveness of stroke-related treatments. Estimates based on data from academic institutions may not be generalizable to community hospitals. In this study, the authors estimated inpatient costs, LOS, and in-hospital mortality for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic cerebral infarction (ICI), and TIA who were treated in community hospitals. METHODS: The authors selected patients using International Classification of Diseases-9-Clinical Modification primary diagnosis codes from the HBSI EXPLORE database. They analyzed patient-level data and inpatient costs, derived from detailed utilization data, for all patients admitted to 137 community hospitals in 1998. Multivariate statistical techniques were used to examine patient-, hospital-, and outcome-related factors associated with inpatient costs. RESULTS: Patients with SAH incurred the highest average cost ($23,777, n = 1,124), followed by patients with ICH ($10,241, n = 3,139), ICI ($5,837, n = 18,740), and TIA ($3,350, n = 7,861). Patient subgroups ranked in the same order for average LOS at 11.5 days for SAH, 7.5 days for ICH, 5.9 days for ICI, and 3.4 days for TIA. Almost one third of patients with SAH (29.0%) and ICH (33.1%) died during hospitalization, whereas 7.0% with ICI and 0.2% with TIA died. For each event, as patient age increased, average costs consistently decreased. Also, average costs were higher among patients treated in community teaching hospitals compared to community nonteaching hospitals for each cerebrovascular event (10 to 29%). CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient costs, LOS, and mortality for patients with cerebrovascular disease are dependent on patient and hospital characteristics.

Variation in the quality of lumbar spine MR images in Washington State.

PURPOSE: To investigate the variation in quality of lumbar spine magnetic resonance (MR) images as a function of type of ownership of the imaging center, number of studies performed per month, specialty training of the image interpreter, and field strength of the MR unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from all imaging facilities in western Washington state that received reimbursement from the Washington State Health Care Authority. Three readers with expertise in spine imaging, who were blinded to center and patient identification information, rated the technical image quality of each study. All MR images of the lumbar spine (maximum of six) paid for by the health care authority were evaluated. If a center had performed more than six studies, then six were randomly selected for evaluation. RESULTS: Variation in quality scores among sites was significant (P =.001). Field strength was the strongest predictor of better quality. Poorer quality was associated with for-profit ownership, a larger number of radiologists at the site reading MR images, and a larger percentage of studies checked by a radiologist prior to the end of the examination. CONCLUSION: There was significant variation in the quality of MR images of the lumbar spine, and at least a portion of this variation was attributable to characteristics of the imaging center.

A critical synopsis of the diagnostic and screening radiology outcomes literature.

In summary, the radiology outcomes research literature is both extensive and broad. The methodologic quality, however, is quite variable. Overall, this quality could be improved by intervention in two areas: methodologic dissemination and development. The number of researchers investigating radiology-related outcomes is high, and presently there are over 20 journals devoted exclusively to radiology research. Even with a relatively narrow definition of "outcomes," we identified over 200 radiology outcomes studies, most from the past few years. However, the methodologic quality of most of these articles was relatively low, with important design flaws and biases. Nonetheless, a substantial number of radiology publications do employ state-of-the-art research methods and innovative approaches to methodologic challenges. The quality of radiology outcomes research overall would benefit tremendously from dissemination of such research methods. Instruction in outcomes research methods is accessible to radiologists. For example, there have been several recent articles and series of articles on outcomes research methods in JAMA, including guidelines for the performance and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses (38-40) and for developing clinical prediction rules (57). Within radiology, several recent articles have appeared on, among other things, cost-effectiveness analysis (34,59,60), assessing quality of life (43), screening for disease (53), and defining the study population (61). The research compendium compiled for the GERRAF (General Electric-Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Academic Fellowships) program remains a comprehensive methodologic source for many of the issues in radiology outcomes research, and outcomes research methods courses are offered every year at the Society for Health Services Research in Radiology and Society for Medical Decision Making meetings, as well as at the meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Even so, awareness of the need for such research techniques remains limited. Dissemination of sound research methods is limited at least in part by the current incentives in radiology research. At many institutions, the number of research publications produced, rather than their quality, determines promotion or academic success. Unfortunately, more rigorous study designs often require more time and resources. Further, because peer reviewers are often as uninformed about research methods as the bulk of those who are submitting manuscripts, it may actually be more difficult to publish articles with more advanced methodologic designs. The standard in radiology is the uncontrolled case series, and deviation from the standard may make acceptance for publication more difficult. On a more optimistic note, recent publication of a number of methodology articles suggests that at least some journals are promoting improved research in methodology (43,53,59-61). We hope that time will be available for manuscript reviewers to learn to understand the strengths and weaknesses of various research approaches. If more rigorous study designs were required for publication, radiology outcomes research would probably improve drastically. Nevertheless, the current peer-review system does not effectively promote sound research design. The other great incentive in research is funding. Clearly, if advanced research design is required for funding, then there is incentive for improvement in research quality. Traditionally, National Cancer Institute and other National Institutes of Health and public sector funding has been predicated on a high level of research sophistication. Undoubtedly, availability of grants for diagnostic and screening imaging clinical trials and other research will go far to improve radiology research methods. The other traditional source of research funding is industry.

Health profiles in quality of life: evaluation of diagnostic technologies.

The use of instruments to measure health-related quality of life has become commonplace in medical research, although their use is still unusual in the evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Dr Greenfield has pointed out the potential to abuse as well as use these methods. The cautions that Dr Greenfield has outlined apply to any such research, whether one is evaluating a new drug or a new imaging device. Even though the chain of events from diagnostic technology to patient outcome is longer than for therapeutic interventions, we maintain that quality-of-life instruments are potentially valuable tools for evaluating any of the links in this chain.

Penetrating neck trauma: sensitivity of clinical examination and cost-effectiveness of angiography.

PURPOSE: To evaluate penetrating neck trauma for (a) sensitivity of the clinical examination as an indicator of clinically significant vascular injury, and (b) cost-effectiveness of performing screening diagnostic angiography. METHODS: The medical records of all patients with penetrating neck trauma presenting at our institution over 4 years were retrospectively reviewed. Injuries were classified into one of three anatomic zones and classified into four mutually exclusive groups based on the extent of vascular injury; (a) no vascular injury; (b) minor vascular abnormality; (c) major vascular abnormality without a change in clinical management; or (d) any injury requiring a change in clinical management. Cost data were also obtained for each patient's hospitalization. RESULTS: There were 111 patients with penetrating neck trauma. No statistically significant difference between the sensitivities of the clinical examination or angiography for the detection of vascular injury were detected. Of the 48 patients who had vascular injuries, 45 had an abnormal clinical findings (93.7% sensitivity). None of the remaining 3 patients with vascular injury and normal clinical findings would have had their treatment altered by the results of angiography. The calculated cost of using angiography as a screening tool for vascular injury in patients with normal clinical findings was approximately $3.08 million per central nervous system event prevented. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in patients with zone II penetrating neck injuries the clinical examination is sufficient to detect significant vascular lesions and that screening angiography may not be indicated. Because our sample size was relatively small and the mean follow-up only 13.3 days, further investigation is needed to demonstrate definitively the lack of usefulness of screening angiography.