Calculation of Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings With and Without Inclusion of the Peer Grouping Step.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods. Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023. Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics. Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.

Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and hospital response to COVID-19: examining associations between risk-adjusted mortality for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality.

OBJECTIVES: The extent to which care quality influenced outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. Our objective was to determine if prepandemic hospital quality is associated with mortality among Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. We calculated hospital-level risk-standardised in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (risk-standardised mortality rates, RSMRs) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and correlation coefficients between RSMRs and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality, overall and stratified by hospital characteristics. SETTING: Short-term acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-For-Service and Medicare Advantage) age 65 and older hospitalised with COVID-19, discharged between 1 April 2020 and 30 September 2021. INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE: Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality. OUTCOMES: Risk-standardised COVID-19 in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (RSMRs). RESULTS: In-hospital (n=4256) RSMRs for Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (April 2020-September 2021) ranged from 4.5% to 59.9% (median 18.2%; IQR 14.7%-23.7%); 30-day RSMRs ranged from 12.9% to 56.2% (IQR 24.6%-30.6%). COVID-19 RSMRs were negatively correlated with star rating summary scores (in-hospital correlation coefficient -0.41, p<0.0001; 30 days -0.38, p<0.0001). Correlations with in-hospital RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.39, p<0.0001) and timely and effective care (-0.30, p<0.0001) group scores; 30-day RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.34, p<0.0001) and mortality (-0.33, p<0.0001) groups. Patients admitted to 1-star hospitals had higher odds of mortality (in-hospital OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.83 to 1.91; 30-day OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48) compared with 5-star hospitals. If all hospitals performed like an average 5-star hospital, we estimate 38 000 fewer COVID-19-related deaths would have occurred between April 2020 and September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with better prepandemic quality may have care structures and processes that allowed for better care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and COVID-19 outcomes will allow policy-makers and hospitals better prepare for future public health emergencies.

Impact of Hospital Affiliation With a Flagship Hospital System on Surgical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare general surgery outcomes at flagship systems, flagship hospitals, and flagship hospital affiliates versus matched controls. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: It is unknown whether flagship hospitals perform better than flagship hospital affiliates for surgical patients. METHODS: Using Medicare claims for 2018 to 2019, we matched patients undergoing inpatient general surgery in flagship system hospitals to controls who underwent the same procedure at hospitals outside the system but within the same region. We defined a "flagship hospital" within each region as the major teaching hospital with the highest patient volume that is also part of a hospital system; its system was labeled a "flagship system." We performed 4 main comparisons: patients treated at any flagship system hospital versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospitals versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospital affiliates versus hospitals outside the flagship system; and flagship hospitals versus affiliate hospitals. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: We formed 32,228 closely matched pairs across 35 regions. Patients at flagship system hospitals (32,228 pairs) had lower 30-day mortality than matched control patients [3.79% vs. 4.36%, difference=-0.57% (-0.86%, -0.28%), P<0.001]. Similarly, patients at flagship hospitals (15,571/32,228 pairs) had lower mortality than control patients. However, patients at flagship hospital affiliates (16,657/32,228 pairs) had similar mortality to matched controls. Flagship hospitals had lower mortality than affiliate hospitals [difference-in-differences=-1.05% (-1.62%, -0.47%), P<0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated at flagship hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than those treated at flagship hospital affiliates. Hence, flagship system affiliation does not alone imply better surgical outcomes.

Assessing the Ambulatory Surgery Center Volume-Outcome Association.

Importance: In surgical patients, it is well known that higher hospital procedure volume is associated with better outcomes. To our knowledge, this volume-outcome association has not been studied in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) in the US. Objective: To determine if low-volume ASCs have a higher rate of revisits after surgery, particularly among patients with multimorbidity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched case-control study used Medicare claims data and analyzed surgeries performed during 2018 and 2019 at ASCs. The study examined 2328 ASCs performing common ambulatory procedures and analyzed 4751 patients with a revisit within 7 days of surgery (defined to be either 1 of 4735 revisits or 1 of 16 deaths without a revisit). These cases were each closely matched to 5 control patients without revisits (23 755 controls). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seven-day revisit in patients (cases) compared with the matched patients without the outcome (controls) in ASCs with low volume (less than 50 procedures over 2 years) vs higher volume (50 or more procedures). Results: Patients at a low-volume ASC had a higher odds of a 7-day revisit vs patients who had their surgery at a higher-volume ASC (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36; P = .001). The odds of revisit for patients with multimorbidity were higher at low-volume ASCs when compared with higher-volume ASCs (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.27-1.94; P < .001). Among patients with multimorbidity in low-volume ASCs, for those who underwent orthopedic procedures, the odds of revisit were 84% higher (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.36-2.50; P < .001) vs higher-volume centers, and for those who underwent general surgery or other procedures, the odds of revisit were 36% higher (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.83; P = .05) vs a higher-volume center. The findings were not statistically significant for patients without multimorbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study, the surgical volume of an ASC was an important indicator of patient outcomes. Older patients with multimorbidity should discuss with their surgeon the optimal location of their care.

Mortality Among Older Medical Patients at Flagship Hospitals and Their Affiliates.

BACKGROUND: We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. DESIGN: A matched cohort study PARTICIPANTS: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: 30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality. KEY RESULTS: 30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality. LIMITATIONS: The study used claims-based data. CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates.

Initial Findings From an Acute Hospital Care at Home Waiver Initiative.

This cohort study assesses outcomes of patients treated during the initial 16 months of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Acute Hospital Care at Home initiative.

The Anesthesiology Physician-Scientist Pipeline: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Growth-An Initiative of the Anesthesia Research Council.

The limited number and diversity of resident physicians pursuing careers as physician-scientists in medicine has been a concern for many decades. The Anesthesia Research Council aimed to address the status of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline, benchmarked against other medical specialties, and to develop strategic recommendations to sustain and expand the number and diversity of anesthesiology physician-scientists. The working group analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program to characterize the diversity and number of research-oriented residents from US and international allopathic medical schools entering 11 medical specialties from 2009 to 2019. Two surveys were developed to assess the research culture of anesthesiology departments. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding information awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists and departments was collected from NIH RePORTER and the Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Anesthesiology ranked eighth to tenth place of 11 medical specialties in the percent of "research-oriented" entering residents, defined as those with advanced degrees (Master's or PhDs) in addition to the MD degree or having published at least 3 research publications before residency. Anesthesiology ranked eighth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who were women but ranked fourth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who self-identified as belonging to an underrepresented group in medicine. There has been a 72% increase in both the total NIH funding awarded to anesthesiology departments and the number of NIH K-series mentored training grants (eg, K08 and K23) awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists between 2015 and 2020. Recommendations for expanding the size and diversity of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline included (1) developing strategies to increase the number of research intensive anesthesiology departments; (2) unifying the diverse programs among academic anesthesiology foundations and societies that seek to grow research in the specialty; (3) adjusting American Society of Anesthesiologists metrics of success to include the number of anesthesiology physician-scientists with extramural research support; (4) increasing the number of mentored awards from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) and International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS); (5) supporting an organized and concerted effort to inform research-oriented medical students of the diverse research opportunities within anesthesiology should include the specialty being represented at the annual meetings of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) students and the American Physician Scientist Association, as well as in institutional MSTP programs. The medical specialty of anesthesiology is defined by new discoveries and contributions to perioperative medicine which will only be sustained by a robust pipeline of anesthesiology physician-scientists.

Oral Health Among Medicare Beneficiaries in Nursing Homes.

This cross-sectional study investigates rates of dental problems among Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes and characteristics associated with these rates.

The Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies Pathway-Enhancing Innovation While Establishing Patient Safeguards.

This Viewpoint discusses the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies pathway, which aims to enhance coverage of emerging technologies with supporting evidence.

Changes in Patient Experiences of Hospital Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: It is important to assess how the COVID-19 pandemic was adversely associated with patients' care experiences. Objective: To describe differences in 2020 to 2021 patient experiences from what would have been expected from prepandemic (2018-2019) trends and assess correlates of changes across hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared 2020 to 2021 data with 2018 to 2019 data from 3 900 887 HCAHPS respondents discharged from 3381 HCAHPS-participating US hospitals. The data were analyzed from 2022 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was an HCAHPS summary score (HCAHPS-SS), which averaged 10 HCAHPS measures. The primary analysis estimated whether HCAHPS scores from patients discharged from 2020 to 2021 differed from scores that would be expected based on quarterly and linear trends from 2018 to 2019 discharges. Secondary analyses stratified hospitals by prepandemic overall star ratings and staffing levels. Results: Of the 3 900 887 HCAHPS 2020 to 2021 respondents, 59% were age 65 years or older, and 35% (11%) were in the surgical (maternity) service lines. Compared with trends expected based on prepandemic (2018-2019) data, HCAHPS-SS was 1.2 percentage points (pp) lower for quarter (Q) 2/2020 discharges and -1.9 to -2.0 pp for Q3/2020 to Q1/2021, which then declined to -3.6 pp by Q4/2021. The most affected measures (Q4/2021) were staff responsiveness (-5.6 pp) and cleanliness (-4.9 pp); the least affected were discharge information (-1.6 pp) and quietness (-1.8 pp). Overall rating and hospital recommendation measures initially exhibited smaller-than-average decreases, but then fell as much as the more specific experience measures by Q2/2021. Quietness did not decline until Q2/2021. The HCAHPS-SS fell most for hospitals with the lowest prepandemic staffing levels; hospitals with bottom-quartile staffing showed the largest decrements, whereas top-quartile hospitals showed smaller decrements in most quarters. Hospitals with better overall prepandemic quality showed consistently smaller HCAHPS-SS drops, with effects for 5-star hospitals about 25% smaller than for 1-star and 2-star hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study of HCAHPS-participating hospitals found that patient experience scores declined during 2020 to 2021. By Q4/2021, the HCAHPS-SS was 3.6 pp lower than would have been expected, a medium effect size. The most affected measures (staff responsiveness and cleanliness) showed large effect sizes, possibly reflecting high illness-associated hospital workforce absenteeism. Hospitals that were lower performing and less staffed prepandemic may have been less resilient to reduced staff availability and other pandemic-associated challenges. However, by Q4/2021, even prepandemic high-performing hospitals had similar declines.

Does Masked Interviewing Encourage Holistic Review in Residency Selection? A Mixed-Methods Study.

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019-2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants.