A Multistate Comparison Study of COVID-19 Cases Among Accredited and Nonaccredited Nursing Homes.

Widely acknowledged is the disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents. This observational study examined the relationship between accreditation status and COVID-19 case rates in states where the numbers and proportions of Joint Commission accredited facilities made such comparisons possible (Illinois (IL), Florida (FL), and Massachusetts (MA)). COVID-19 data were accessed from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Compare Public Use File, which included retrospective COVID-19 data submitted by nursing homes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network. The outcome variable was the total number of nursing home-identified COVID-19 cases from June 2020 to January 2021. Joint Commission accreditation status was the independent variable. Mediating factors included state, and county-level case rates. Increases in the county rate had a significant association with higher nursing home COVID-19 case rates (p < .001). After adjusting for county case rates, no differences were observed in the mean group case rates for accredited and nonaccredited nursing homes. However, comparing predicted case rates to actual case rates revealed that accredited nursing homes were more closely aligned with their predicted rates. Performance of the nonaccredited nursing homes was more variable and had proportionally more outliers compared to accredited nursing homes. Community prevalence of COVID-19 is the strongest predictor of nursing home cases. While accreditation status did not have an impact on overall mean group performance, nonaccredited nursing homes had greater variation in performance and a higher proportion of negative outliers. Accreditation was associated with more consistent performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite being located in counties with a higher prevalence of COVID-19.

Retooling of Paper-based Outcome Measures to Electronic Format: Comparison of the NY State Public Risk Model and EHR-derived Risk Models for CABG Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Risk adjustment is critical in the comparison of quality of care and health care outcomes for providers. Electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to eliminate the need for costly and time-consuming manual data abstraction of patient outcomes and risk factors necessary for risk adjustment. METHODS: Leading EHR vendors and hospital focus groups were asked to review risk factors in the New York State (NYS) coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery statistical models for mortality and readmission and assess feasibility of EHR data capture. Risk models based only on registry data elements that can be captured by EHRs (one for easily obtained data and one for data obtained with more difficulty) were developed and compared with the NYS models for different years. RESULTS: Only 6 data elements could be extracted from the EHR, and outlier hospitals differed substantially for readmission but not for mortality. At the patient level, measures of fit and predictive ability indicated that the EHR models are inferior to the NYS CABG surgery risk model [eg, c-statistics of 0.76 vs. 0.71 (P<0.001) and 0.76 vs. 0.74 (P=0.009) for mortality in 2010], although the correlation of the predicted probabilities between the NYS and EHR models was high, ranging from 0.96 to 0.98. CONCLUSIONS: A simplified risk model using EHR data elements could not capture most of the risk factors in the NYS CABG surgery risk models, many outlier hospitals were different for readmissions, and patient-level measures of fit were inferior.

Incidence and Method of Suicide in Hospitals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There are no reliable estimates of hospital inpatient suicides in the United States. Understanding the rate and the methods used in suicides is important to guide prevention efforts. This study analyzed two national data sets to establish an evidence-based estimate of hospital inpatient suicides and the methods used. METHODS: The study is designed as a cross-sectional analysis of data from 27 states reporting to the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) for 2014-2015, and from hospitals reporting to The Joint Commission's Sentinel Event (SE) Database from 2010 to 2017. Categorical variables and qualitative reviews of event narratives were used to identify and code suicide events occurring during hospital inpatient treatment. RESULTS: Based on the hospital inpatient suicides reported in the NVDRS during 2014-2015, 73.9% of which occurred during psychiatric treatment, it is estimated that between 48.5 and 64.9 hospital inpatient suicides occur per year in the United States. Of these, 31.0 to 51.7 are expected to involve psychiatric inpatients. Hanging was the most common method of inpatient suicide in both the NVDRS and SE databases (71.7% and 70.3%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The estimated number of hospital inpatient suicides per year in the United States ranges from 48.5 to 64.9, which is far below the widely cited figure of 1,500 per year. Analysis of inpatient suicide methods suggests that hospital prevention efforts should be primarily focused on mitigating risks associated with hanging, and additional suicide prevention efforts may be best directed toward reducing the risk of suicide immediately following discharge.

Using the Targeted Solutions Tool® to Improve Hand Hygiene Compliance Is Associated with Decreased Health Care-Associated Infections.

BACKGROUND: In 2010 Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) implemented the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare's (the Center's) Web-based Targeted Solutions Tool ®(TST ®) for improving hand hygiene through-out its 12 hospitals after participating in the Center's first project on hand hygiene, pilot testing the TST, and achieving significant improvement for each pilot unit. Because hand hygiene is a key contributing factor in health care-associated infections (HAIs), this project was an important part of MHHS's strategy to eliminate HAIs. METHODS: MHHS implemented the TST for hand hygiene in 150 inpatient units in 12 hospitals and conducted a system wide process improvement project from October 2010 through December 2014. The TST enabled MHHS to measure compliance rates, identify reasons for noncompliance, implement tested interventions provided by the TST, and sustain the improvements. Data on rates of ICU central line- associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and ventilator- associated pneumonia (VAP) were also collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Based on 31,600 observations (October 2010- May 2011), MHHS's system wide hand hygiene compliance baseline rate averaged 58.1%. Compliance averaged 84.4% during the "improve" phase (June 2011-November 2012), 94.7% in the first 13 months of the "control phase" (December 2012-December 2014) and 95.6% in the final 12 months (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons to baseline). Con comitantly, adult ICU CLABSI and VAP rates decreased by 49% (p = 0.024) and 45% (p = 0.045), respectively. CONCLUSION: MHHS substantially improved hand hygiene compliance in its hospitals and sustained high levels of compliance for 25 months following implementation. Adult ICU CLABSI and VAP rates decreased in association with the hand hygiene compliance improvements.

Infection Control Measure Performance in Long-Term Care Hospitals and Their Relationship to Joint Commission Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the relationship between Joint Commission accreditation and health care-associated infections (HAIs) in long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). METHODS: This observational study used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) LTCH data for the period 2017 to June 2021. The standardized infection ratio (SIR) of three measures used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network were used as dependent variables in a random coefficient Poisson regression model (adjusting for CMS region, owner type, and bed size quartile): catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs), and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) for the periods 2017 to 2019 and July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Data from January 1 to June 30, 2020, were excluded due to the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The data set included 244 (73.3%) Joint Commission-accredited and 89 (26.7%) non-Joint Commission-accredited LTCHs. Compared to non-Joint Commission-accredited LTCHs, accredited LTCHs had significantly better (lower) SIRs for CLABSI and CAUTI measures, although no differences were observed for CDI SIRs. There were no significant differences in year trends for any of the HAI measures. For each year of the study period, a greater proportion of Joint Commission-accredited LTCHs performed significantly better than the national benchmark for all three measures (p = 0.04 for CAUTI, p = 0.02 for CDI, p = 0.01 for CLABSI). CONCLUSION: Although this study was not designed to establish causality, positive associations were observed between Joint Commission accreditation and CLABSI and CAUTI measures, and Joint Commission-accredited LTCHs attained more consistent high performance over the four-year study period for all three measures. Influencing factors may include the focus of Joint Commission standards on infection control and prevention (ICP), including the hierarchical approach to selecting ICP-related standards as inputs into LTCH policy.

Evaluating the Prevalence of Four Recommended Practices for Suicide Prevention Following Hospital Discharge.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission's National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) for suicide prevention (NPSG.15.01.01) requires that accredited hospitals maintain policies/procedures for follow-up care at discharge for patients identified as at risk for suicide. The proportion of hospitals meeting these requirements through use of recommended discharge practices is unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study explored the prevalence of suicide prevention activities among Joint Commission-accredited hospitals. A questionnaire was sent to 1,148 accredited hospitals. The authors calculated the percentage of hospitals reporting implementation of four recommended discharge practices for suicide prevention. RESULTS: Of 1,148 hospitals, 346 (30.1%) responded. The majority (n = 212 [61.3%]) of hospitals had implemented formal safety planning, but few of those (n = 41 [19.3%]) included all key components of safety planning. Approximately a third of hospitals provided a warm handoff to outpatient care (n = 128 [37.0%)] or made follow-up contact with patients (n = 105 [30.3%]), and approximately a quarter (n = 97 [28.0%]) developed a plan for lethal means safety. Very few (n = 14 [4.0%]) hospitals met full criteria for implementing recommended suicide prevention activities at time of discharge. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a significant gap in implementation of recommended practices related to prevention of suicide postdischarge. Additional research is needed to identify factors contributing to this implementation gap.

Venous thromboembolism performance measurement in the United States: An evolving landscape with many stakeholders.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a life-threatening, costly, and common preventable complication associated with hospitalization. Although VTE prevention strategies such as risk assessment and prophylaxis are available, they are not applied uniformly or systematically across US hospitals and healthcare systems. Hospital-level performance measurement has been used nationally to promote standardized approaches for VTE prevention and incentivize the adoption of guideline-based care management. Though most measures reflect care processes rather than outcomes, certain domains including diagnosis, treatment, and continuity of care remain unmeasured. In this article, we describe the development of VTE prevention measures from various stakeholders, measure strengths and limitations, publicly reported rates, the impact of technology and health policy on measure use, and perspectives on future options for surveillance and performance monitoring.

Home Health Agency Patient Experience Measures and Their Relationship to Joint Commission Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Health care accreditation is a widely accepted mechanism for improving the quality of care and promoting patient safety. An integral dimension of health care quality is the patient experience of care. However, the influence of accreditation on the patient experience is unclear. The Home Health Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HHCAHPS) survey is the standard for collecting patient care experience data in the home health setting. The aim of this study was to examine the association of Joint Commission accreditation on patients' experience of care by comparing HHCAHPS ratings from Joint Commission-accredited and non-Joint Commission-accredited home health agencies (HHAs). METHODS: This multiyear observational study used 2015-2019 HHCAHPS data obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) website and Joint Commission databases. The data set included 1,454 (23.8%) Joint Commission-accredited and 4,643 (76.2%) non-Joint Commission-accredited HHAs. Dependent variables included three composite measures of care (Care of Patients, Provider-Patient Communications, and Specific Care Issues) and two global rating measures. Data were analyzed using a series of longitudinal random effects logistic regression models. RESULTS: This study found no association between Joint Commission accreditation and the two global HHCAHPS measures, modest significant increases for Joint Commission-accredited HHAs in measure rates for the Care of Patients and Communication composite measures (p < 0.05), and a more significant increase for the Specific Care Issues composite measure related to medication safety and home safety (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Joint Commission accreditation may be positively associated with some patient experience of care outcomes. This relationship was most pronounced when there was significant overlap between the focus of the accreditation standards and focus of the HHCAHPS items.

Clinician Well-Being Assessment and Interventions in Joint Commission-Accredited Hospitals and Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Clinician burnout is a longstanding national problem threatening clinician health, patient outcomes, and the health care system. The aim of this study is to determine the proportion of hospitals and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that are measuring and taking system actions to promote clinician well-being. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used an electronic questionnaire from April 21 to June 27, 2022, to assess the current state of organizational efforts to assess and address clinician well-being among a national sample of 1,982 Joint Commission-accredited hospitals and 256 accredited FQHCs. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of hospitals and FQHCs that assessed the prevalence of clinician burnout, established a chief wellness officer position, established a wellness committee, made clinician well-being an organizational performance metric, and implemented other activities/interventions that target clinician burnout. RESULTS: A total of 481 (21.5%) organizations responded to the survey (hospital n = 396 [20.0%], FQHC n = 85 [33.2%]). Response rates did not differ by organization size, type, teaching status or urban vs. rural location. Approximately one third (34.0%) of the organizations in the sample conducted an organizational well-being assessment among clinicians at least once in the past three years. Although nearly half of responding organizations reported implementing some kind of intervention to address clinician burnout, only 28.7% of organizations had adopted a comprehensive approach to address clinician well-being/burnout. Only 10.1% of hospitals and 5.4% of FQHCs reported having an established senior leadership position responsible for assessing and promoting clinician well-being at the organization level, and less than half (29.3% FQHCs, 37.6% hospitals) of organizations reported having an established wellness committee. Among 500+ bed hospitals, 61.2% had surveyed, 75.6% had established a well-being committee, 78.0% had implemented interventions to promote clinician well-being, and 26.8% had established a chief wellness officer. CONCLUSION: Although half of Joint Commission-accredited hospitals and FQHCs reported taking steps to improve clinician well-being, a minority are measuring clinician well-being, and few are taking a comprehensive approach or established a chief wellness officer position to advance clinician well-being as an organizational priority. Organizational clinician well-being improvement efforts are unlikely to be successful without measurement and leadership in place to drive change.

Use of leading practices in US hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of hospitals that implemented 6 leading practices in their antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Design: Cross-sectional observational survey. SETTING: Acute-care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: ASP leaders. METHODS: Advance letters and electronic questionnaires were initiated February 2020. Primary outcomes were percentage of hospitals that (1) implemented facility-specific treatment guidelines (FSTG); (2) performed interactive prospective audit and feedback (PAF) either face-to-face or by telephone; (3) optimized diagnostic testing; (4) measured antibiotic utilization; (5) measured C. difficile infection (CDI); and (6) measured adherence to FSTGs. RESULTS: Of 948 hospitals invited, 288 (30.4%) completed the questionnaire. Among them, 82 (28.5%) had <99 beds, 162 (56.3%) had 100-399 beds, and 44 (15.2%) had ≥400+ beds. Also, 230 (79.9%) were healthcare system members. Moreover, 161 hospitals (54.8%) reported implementing FSTGs; 214 (72.4%) performed interactive PAF; 105 (34.9%) implemented procedures to optimize diagnostic testing; 235 (79.8%) measured antibiotic utilization; 258 (88.2%) measured CDI; and 110 (37.1%) measured FSTG adherence. Small hospitals performed less interactive PAF (61.0%; P = .0018). Small and nonsystem hospitals were less likely to optimize diagnostic testing: 25.2% (P = .030) and 21.0% (P = .0077), respectively. Small hospitals were less likely to measure antibiotic utilization (67.8%; P = .0010) and CDI (80.3%; P = .0038). Nonsystem hospitals were less likely to implement FSTGs (34.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the adoption of ASP leading practices. A minority of hospitals have taken action to optimize diagnostic testing and measure adherence to FSTGs. Additional efforts are needed to expand adoption of leading practices across all acute-care hospitals with the greatest need in smaller hospitals.

The perceived impact of public reporting hospital performance data: interviews with hospital staff.

OBJECTIVE: To assess perceptions about the value and impact of publicly reporting hospital performance measure data. DESIGN: Qualitative research. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Administrators, physicians, nurses and other front-line staff from 29 randomly selected Joint Commission-accredited hospitals reporting core performance measure data. METHODS: Structured focus-group interviews were conducted to gather hospital staff perceptions of the perceived impact of publicly reporting performance measure data. RESULTS: Interviews revealed six common themes. Publicly reporting data: (i) led to increased involvement of leadership in performance improvement; (ii) created a sense of accountability to both internal and external customers; (iii) contributed to a heightened awareness of performance measure data throughout the hospital; (iv) influenced or re-focused organizational priorities; (v) raised concerns about data quality and (vi) led to questions about consumer understanding of performance reports. Few differences were noted in responses based on hospitals' performance on the measures. CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of performance measure data appears to motivate and energize organizations to improve or maintain high levels of performance. Despite commonly cited concerns over the limitations, validity and interpretability of publicly reported data, the heightened awareness of the data intensified the focus on performance improvement activities. As the healthcare industry has moved toward greater transparency and accountability, healthcare professionals have responded by re-prioritizing hospital quality improvement efforts to address newly exposed gaps in care.

Quality of care in U.S. hospitals as reflected by standardized measures, 2002-2004.

BACKGROUND: In July 2002, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations implemented standardized performance measures that were designed to track the performance of accredited hospitals and encourage improvement in the quality of health care. METHODS: We examined hospitals' performance on 18 standardized indicators of the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. One measure assessed a clinical outcome (death in the hospital after acute myocardial infarction), and the other 17 measures assessed processes of care. Data were collected over a two-year period in more than 3000 accredited hospitals. All participating hospitals received quarterly feedback in the form of comparative reports throughout the study. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis revealed a significant improvement (P<0.01) in the performance of U.S. hospitals on 15 of 18 measures, and no measure showed a significant deterioration. The magnitude of improvement ranged from 3 percent to 33 percent during the eight quarters studied. For 16 of the 17 process-of-care measures, hospitals with a low level of performance at baseline had greater improvements over the subsequent two years than hospitals with a high level of performance at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Over a two-year period, we observed consistent improvement in measures reflecting the process of care for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Both quantitative and qualitative research are needed to explore the reasons for these improvements.

Trends in Results of HBIPS National Performance Measures and Association With Year of Adoption.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple studies demonstrate a consistent pattern of improvement on quality measures among health care organizations after they begin collecting and reporting data. This study compared results on psychiatric performance measures among cohorts of hospitals with different characteristics that elected to begin reporting on the measures at various points in time. METHODS: Quarterly reporting of Hospital-Based Inpatient Psychiatric Services (HBIPS) measures to the Joint Commission was used to examine trends in performance among four hospital cohorts that began reporting in 2009 (N=243), 2011 (N=139), 2014 (N=137), or 2015 (N=372). The HBIPS measures address admission screening, restraint and seclusion use, justification of use of multiple antipsychotic medications, and discharge planning. Comparisons were based upon initial quarters of data reported and change rates. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, the analyses showed that all cohorts significantly improved across quarters for admission screening, justification of multiple antipsychotic medications, and discharge planning. Restraint hours significantly dropped over the initial reporting periods, but only for the 2009 and 2015 cohorts. Seclusion hours significantly dropped over the six reporting periods for all cohorts except 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Several differences were observed across cohorts in the rate of change between baseline and final measurement for various measures. In nearly every case, however, hospitals that began reporting measurement data earlier performed better than subsequent cohorts during the later cohorts' first quarter of reporting.

Integrating hospitals into community emergency preparedness planning.

BACKGROUND: Strong community linkages are essential to a health care organization's overall preparedness for emergencies. OBJECTIVE: To assess community emergency preparedness linkages among hospitals, public health officials, and first responders and to investigate the influence of community hazards, previous preparation for an event requiring national security oversight, and experience responding to actual disasters. DESIGN: With expert advice from an advisory panel, a mailed questionnaire was used to assess linkage issues related to training and drills, equipment, surveillance, laboratory testing, surge capacity, incident management, and communication. SETTING: A simple random sample of 1750 U.S. medical-surgical hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Of 678 hospital representatives that agreed to participate, 575 (33%) completed the questionnaire in early 2004. Respondents were hospital personnel responsible for environmental safety, emergency management, infection control, administration, emergency services, and security. MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence and breadth of participation in community-wide planning; examination of 17 basic elements in a weighted analysis. RESULTS: In a weighted analysis, most hospitals (88.2% [95% CI, 84.1% to 92.3%]) engaged in community-wide drills and exercises, and most (82.2% [CI, 77.8% to 86.5%]) conducted a collaborative threat and vulnerability analysis with community responders. Of all respondents, 57.3% (CI, 52.1% to 62.5%) reported that their community plans addressed the hospital's need for additional supplies and equipment, and 73.0% (CI, 68.1% to 77.9%) reported that decontamination capacity needs were addressed. Fewer reported a direct link to the Health Alert Network (54.4% [CI, 49.3% to 59.5%]) and around-the-clock access to a live voice from a public health department (40.0% [CI, 35.0% to 45.0%]). Performance on many of 17 basic elements was better in large and urban hospitals and was associated with a high number of perceived hazards, previous national security event preparation, and experience in actual response. LIMITATIONS: Responses reflect hospitals' self-perception of linkages. The quality of linkages and the extent of possible biases favoring positive responses were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: In this baseline assessment, most hospitals reported substantial integration. However, results suggest that relationships between hospitals, public health departments, and other critical response entities are not adequately robust. Suggestions for enhancing linkages are discussed.

Rapid influenza diagnostic test use and antiviral prescriptions in outpatient settings pre- and post-2009 H1N1 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) can be used at the point-of-care and are often the only influenza tests readily available in outpatient facilities. OBJECTIVES: To determine the use of RIDTs and antiviral prescription practices in outpatient facilities. STUDY DESIGN: Surveys were mailed to U.S. physician's offices, emergency departments, and community health centers in 2008 (pre-2009 H1N1 pandemic) and 2010 (post-2009 H1N1 pandemic). The 2010 survey included questions to evaluate changes in testing and treatment practices among various risk groups subsequent to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. RESULTS: In both surveys, respondents using RIDTs relied on RIDT results to guide prescribing antiviral medications. Greater than two-thirds of these respondents reported prescribing antiviral medications both pre- and post-pandemic for patients within 48h of onset of flu-like symptoms with a positive RIDT (69% pre-pandemic; 67% post-pandemic). After the pandemic (2010 survey), outpatient providers also reported prescribing antivirals to those with flu-like symptoms for 31% of children <2 years, 23% of children 2-5 years, 37% of pregnant patients, and 74% of other patients at high risk; while these figures were higher than pre-pandemic, they represent a failure to use CDC guidelines to prescribe antivirals for patients with suspected influenza who are at higher risk for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in outpatient facilities often relied on RIDT findings to aid in making antiviral treatment decisions; however their treatment practices were not always consistent with CDC guidelines. The use of RIDTs and antiviral medicines were influenced by the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

Hospital performance trends on national quality measures and the association with Joint Commission accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of the impact of hospital accreditation have been previously hampered by the lack of nationally standardized data. One way to assess this impact is to compare accreditation status with other evidence-based measures of quality, such as the process measures now publicly reported by The Joint Commission and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between Joint Commission accreditation status and both absolute measures of, and trends in, hospital performance on publicly reported quality measures for common diseases. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Performance data for 2004 and 2008 from U.S. acute care and critical access hospitals were obtained using publicly available CMS Hospital Compare data augmented with Joint Commission performance data. MEASUREMENTS: Changes in hospital performance between 2004 and 2008, and percent of hospitals with 2008 performance exceeding 90% for 16 measures of quality-of-care and 4 summary scores. RESULTS: Hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission tended to have better baseline performance in 2004 than non-accredited hospitals. Accredited hospitals had larger gains over time, and were significantly more likely to have high performance in 2008 on 13 out of 16 standardized clinical performance measures and all summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: While Joint Commission-accredited hospitals already outperformed non-accredited hospitals on publicly reported quality measures in the early days of public reporting, these differences became significantly more pronounced over 5 years of observation. Future research should examine whether accreditation actually promotes improved performance or is a marker for other hospital characteristics associated with such performance. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2011;6:458-465. © 2011 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Case volume and hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care.

BACKGROUND: For many complex cardiovascular procedures the well-established link between volume and outcome has rested on the underlying assumption that experience leads to more reliable implementation of the processes of care which have been associated with better clinical outcomes. This study tested that assumption by examining the relationship between cardiovascular case volumes and the implementation of twelve basic evidence-based processes of cardiovascular care. METHOD AND RESULTS: Observational analysis of over 3000 US hospitals submitting cardiovascular performance indicator data to The Joint Commission on during 2005. Hospitals were grouped together based upon their annual case volumes and indicator rates were calculated for twelve standardized indicators of evidence-based processes of cardiovascular care (eight of which assessed evidenced-based processes for patients with acute myocardial infarction and four of which evaluated evidenced-based processes for heart failure patients). As case volume increased so did indicator rates, up to a statistical cut-point that was unique to each indicator (ranging from 12 to 287 annual cases). t-Test analyses and generalized linear mixed effects logistic regression were used to compare the performance of hospitals with case volumes above or below the statistical cut-point. Hospitals with case volumes that were above the cut-point had indicator rates that were, on an average, 10 percentage points higher than hospitals with case volumes below the cut-point (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hospitals treating fewer cardiovascular cases were significantly less likely to apply evidence-based processes of care than hospitals with larger case volumes, but only up to a statistically identifiable cut-point unique to each indicator.

Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in the characteristics of adverse events between English speaking patients and patients with limited English proficiency in US hospitals. SETTING: Six Joint Commission accredited hospitals in the USA. METHOD: Adverse event data on English speaking patients and patients with limited English proficiency were collected from six hospitals over 7 months in 2005 and classified using the National Quality Forum endorsed Patient Safety Event Taxonomy. RESULTS: About 49.1% of limited English proficient patient adverse events involved some physical harm whereas only 29.5% of adverse events for patients who speak English resulted in physical harm. Of those adverse events resulting in physical harm, 46.8% of the limited English proficient patient adverse events had a level of harm ranging from moderate temporary harm to death, compared with 24.4% of English speaking patient adverse events. The adverse events that occurred to limited English proficient patients were also more likely to be the result of communication errors (52.4%) than adverse events for English speaking patients (35.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Language barriers appear to increase the risks to patient safety. It is important for patients with language barriers to have ready access to competent language services. Providers need to collect reliable language data at the patient point of entry and document the language services provided during the patient-provider encounter.

Assessing the reliability of standardized performance indicators.

OBJECTIVE: . To investigate the reliability of self-reported standardized performance indicators introduced by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in July 2002 and implemented in approximately 3400 accredited US hospitals. The study sought to identify the most common data quality problems and determine causes and possible strategies for resolution. DESIGN: Data were independently reabstracted from a random sample of 30 hospitals. Reabstracted data were compared with data originally abstracted, and discrepancies were adjudicated with hospital staff. Structured interviews were used to probe possible reasons for abstraction discrepancies. RESULTS: The mean data element agreement rate for the 61 data elements evaluated was 91.9%, and the mean kappa statistic for binary data elements was 0.68. The rate of agreement for individual data elements ranged from 100 to 62.4%. The mean difference between calculated indicator rates was 4.88% (absolute value) and the range of differences was 0.0-13.3%. Symmetry of disagreement among original abstractors and reabstractors identified eight indicators whose differences in calculated rates were statistically unlikely to have occurred through random chance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although improvement in the accuracy and completeness of the self-reported data is possible and desirable, the baseline level of data reliability appears to be acceptable for indicators used to assess and improve hospital performance on selected clinical topics.