Scalable kernel balancing weights in a nationwide observational study of hospital profit status and heart attack outcomes.

Weighting is a general and often-used method for statistical adjustment. Weighting has two objectives: first, to balance covariate distributions, and second, to ensure that the weights have minimal dispersion and thus produce a more stable estimator. A recent, increasingly common approach directly optimizes the weights toward these two objectives. However, this approach has not yet been feasible in large-scale datasets when investigators wish to flexibly balance general basis functions in an extended feature space. To address this practical problem, we describe a scalable and flexible approach to weighting that integrates a basis expansion in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with state-of-the-art convex optimization techniques. Specifically, we use the rank-restricted Nyström method to efficiently compute a kernel basis for balancing in nearly linear time and space, and then use the specialized first-order alternating direction method of multipliers to rapidly find the optimal weights. In an extensive simulation study, we provide new insights into the performance of weighting estimators in large datasets, showing that the proposed approach substantially outperforms others in terms of accuracy and speed. Finally, we use this weighting approach to conduct a national study of the relationship between hospital profit status and heart attack outcomes in a comprehensive dataset of 1.27 million patients. We find that for-profit hospitals use interventional cardiology to treat heart attacks at similar rates as other hospitals but have higher mortality and readmission rates.

Examining sources of post-acute care inequities with layered target matching.

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with racial inequities in discharge location, skilled nursing facility (SNF) utilization, and readmissions. DATA SOURCES: A 20% sample of longitudinal Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We present layered target matching, a method for studying sources of inequities. Layered target matching examines a fixed target population profile representing any race, ethnicity, or vulnerable population, sequentially adjusting for sets of characteristics that may contribute to inequities these groups endure. We use the method to study racial inequities in post-acute care use and readmissions. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We studied Black and non-Hispanic White fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66+ admitted to short-term acute-care hospitals for qualifying diagnoses or procedures between January 1, 2016 and November 30, 2018. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Admitted Black patients tended to be younger, had significantly higher rates of risk factors such as diabetes, stroke, or renal disease, and were much more frequently admitted to large or academic hospitals. Relative to demographically similar White patients, Black patients were significantly more likely to be discharged to SNFs (21.8% vs. 19.3%, difference = 2.5%, p < 0.0001) and to receive any SNF care within 30 days of discharge (25.3% vs. 22.4%, difference = 2.9%, p < 0.0001). Black patients were also significantly more likely to experience 30-day readmission (18.7% vs. 14.5%, difference = 4.2%, p < 0.0001). Differences in reasons for hospitalization and risk factors explained most of the differences in discharge location, post-acute care use, and readmission rates, while additional adjustment for differences in hospital characteristics and complications made little difference for any of the measures studied. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant Black-White differences in discharge to SNFs, SNF utilization, and readmission rates. Using layered target matching, we found that differences in risk factors and reasons for hospitalization explained most of these differences, while differences in hospitals did not materially impact the differences.

Alzheimer's Dementia After Exposure to Anesthesia and Surgery in the Elderly: A Matched Natural Experiment Using Appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether surgery and anesthesia in the elderly may promote Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). BACKGROUND: There is a substantial conflicting literature concerning the hypothesis that surgery and anesthesia promotes ADRD. Much of the literature is confounded by indications for surgery or has small sample size. This study examines elderly patients with appendicitis, a common condition that strikes mostly at random after controlling for some known associations. METHODS: A matched natural experiment of patients undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis versus control patients without appendicitis using Medicare data from 2002 to 2017, examining 54,996 patients without previous diagnoses of ADRD, cognitive impairment, or neurological degeneration, who developed appendicitis between ages 68 through 77 years and underwent an appendectomy (the ''Appendectomy'' treated group), matching them 5:1 to 274,980 controls, examining the subsequent hazard for developing ADRD. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ADRD or death was lower in the Appendectomy group than controls: HR = 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], P < 0.0001, (28.2% in Appendectomy vs 29.1% in controls, at 7.5 years). The HR for death was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), P = 0.002, (22.7% vs 23.1% at 7.5 years). The HR for developing ADRD alone was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), P < 0.0001, (7.6% in Appendectomy vs 8.6% in controls, at 7.5 years). No subgroup analyses found significantly elevated rates of ADRD in the Appendectomy group. CONCLUSION: In this natural experiment involving 329,976 elderly patients, exposure to appendectomy surgery and anesthesia did not increase the subsequent rate of ADRD.

A National Comparison of Operative Outcomes of New and Experienced Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether outcomes achieved by new surgeons are attributable to inexperience or to differences in the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity. BACKGROUND: Although prior studies suggest that new surgeon outcomes are worse than those of experienced surgeons, factors that underlie these phenomena are poorly understood. METHODS: A nationwide observational tapered matching study of outcomes of Medicare patients treated by new and experienced surgeons in 1221 US hospitals (2009-2013). The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were examined. RESULTS: In total, 694,165 patients treated by 8503 experienced surgeons were matched to 68,036 patients treated by 2119 new surgeons working in the same hospitals. New surgeons' patients were older (25.8% aged ≥85 vs 16.3%,P<0.0001) with more emergency admissions (53.9% vs 25.8%,P<0.0001) than experienced surgeons' patients. Patients of new surgeons had a significantly higher baseline 30-day mortality rate compared with patients of experienced surgeons (6.2% vs 4.5%,P<0.0001;OR 1.42 (1.33, 1.52)). The difference remained significant after matching the types of operations performed (6.2% vs 5.1%, P<0.0001; OR 1.24 (1.16, 1.32)) and after further matching on a combination of operation type and emergency admission status (6.2% vs 5.6%, P=0.0007; OR 1.12 (1.05, 1.19)). After matching on operation type, emergency admission status, and patient complexity, the difference between new and experienced surgeons' patients' 30-day mortality became indistinguishable (6.2% vs 5.9%,P=0.2391;OR 1.06 (0.97, 1.16)). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries, the majority of the differences in outcomes between new and experienced surgeons are related to the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity rather than new surgeon inexperience.

Valuing hospital investments in nursing: multistate matched-cohort study of surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: There are known clinical benefits associated with investments in nursing. Less is known about their value. AIMS: To compare surgical patient outcomes and costs in hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources and to determine if value differs across these hospitals for patients with different mortality risks. METHODS: Retrospective matched-cohort design of patient outcomes at hospitals with better versus worse nursing resources, defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses and nurse work environments. The sample included 62 715 pairs of surgical patients in 76 better nursing resourced hospitals and 230 worse nursing resourced hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Patients were exactly matched on principal procedures and their hospital's size category, teaching and technology status, and were closely matched on comorbidities and other risk factors. RESULTS: Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had lower 30-day mortality: 2.7% vs 3.1% (p<0.001), lower failure-to-rescue: 5.4% vs 6.2% (p<0.001), lower readmissions: 12.6% vs 13.5% (p<0.001), shorter lengths of stay: 4.70 days vs 4.76 days (p<0.001), more intensive care unit admissions: 17.2% vs 15.4% (p<0.001) and marginally higher nurse-adjusted costs (which account for the costs of better nursing resources): $20 096 vs $19 358 (p<0.001), as compared with patients in worse nursing resourced hospitals. The nurse-adjusted cost associated with a 1% improvement in mortality at better nursing hospitals was $2035. Patients with the highest mortality risk realised the greatest value from nursing resources. CONCLUSION: Hospitals with better nursing resources provided better clinical outcomes for surgical patients at a small additional cost. Generally, the sicker the patient, the greater the value at better nursing resourced hospitals.

Evaluating the Costs and Outcomes of Hospital Nursing Resources: a Matched Cohort Study of Patients with Common Medical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources. DESIGN: Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status. MAIN MEASURES: Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs. KEY RESULTS: Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost.

Duty Hour Reform and the Outcomes of Patients Treated by New Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied. METHODS: We studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors. RESULTS: Traditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049]. CONCLUSIONS: Duty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.

Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Surgical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals on a national scale by closely matching on patient procedures and characteristics. BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals have been shown to often have better quality than nonteaching hospitals, but cost and value associated with teaching hospitals remains unclear. METHODS: A study of Medicare patients at 340 teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios ≥ 0.25) and matched patient controls from 2444 nonteaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios < 0.05).We studied 86,751 pairs admitted for general surgery (GS), 214,302 pairs of patients admitted for orthopedic surgery, and 52,025 pairs of patients admitted for vascular surgery. RESULTS: In GS, mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of -0.95%, <0.0001), and overall paired cost difference = $915 (P < 0.0001). For the GS quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (15.94% versus 18.18%, difference = -2.24%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $3773 (P < 0.0001), yielding $1682 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Patterns for vascular surgery outcomes resembled general surgery; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching environments, though costs were higher at teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare patients, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used in general surgery, and to some extent vascular surgery, but this was not apparent in orthopedic surgery.

Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Medical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics. DESIGN: Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05). PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA). EXPOSURE: Treatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Thirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Survival by Socioeconomic Status Despite Medicare and Medicaid Insurance.

Policy Points Patients with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience poorer survival rates after diagnosis of breast cancer, even when enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. Most of the difference in survival is due to more advanced cancer on presentation and the general poor health of lower SES patients, while only a very small fraction of the SES disparity is due to differences in cancer treatment. Even when comparing only low- versus not-low-SES whites (without confounding by race) the survival disparity between disparate white SES populations is very large and is associated with lower use of preventive care, despite having insurance. CONTEXT: Disparities in breast cancer survival by socioeconomic status (SES) exist despite the "safety net" programs Medicare and Medicaid. What is less clear is the extent to which SES disparities affect various racial and ethnic groups and whether causes differ across populations. METHODS: We conducted a tapered matching study comparing 1,890 low-SES (LSES) non-Hispanic white, 1,824 black, and 723 Hispanic white women to 60,307 not-low-SES (NLSES) non-Hispanic white women, all in Medicare and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1992 and 2010 in 17 US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) regions. LSES Medicare patients were Medicaid dual-eligible and resided in neighborhoods with both high poverty and low education. NLSES Medicare patients had none of these factors. MEASUREMENTS: 5-year and median survival. FINDINGS: LSES non-Hispanic white patients were diagnosed with more stage IV disease (6.6% vs 3.6%; p < 0.0001), larger tumors (24.6 mm vs 20.2 mm; p < 0.0001), and more chronic diseases such as diabetes (37.8% vs 19.0%; p < 0.0001) than NLSES non-Hispanic white patients. Disparity in 5-year survival (NLSES - LSES) was 13.7% (p < 0.0001) when matched for age, year, and SEER site (a 42-month difference in median survival). Additionally, matching 55 presentation factors, including stage, reduced the disparity to 4.9% (p = 0.0012), but further matching on treatments yielded little further change in disparity: 4.6% (p = 0.0014). Survival disparities among LSES blacks and Hispanics, also versus NLSES whites, were significantly associated with presentation factors, though black patients also displayed disparities related to initial treatment. Before being diagnosed, all LSES populations used significantly less preventive care services than matched NLSES controls. CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare, SES disparities in breast cancer survival were large (even among non-Hispanic whites) and predominantly related to differences of presentation characteristics at diagnosis rather than differences in treatment. Preventive care was less frequent in LSES patients, which may help explain disparities at presentation.

Twelve-Month Outcomes After Transplant of Hepatitis C-Infected Kidneys Into Uninfected Recipients: A Single-Group Trial.

Background: Organs from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected deceased donors are often discarded. Preliminary data from 2 small trials, including THINKER-1 (Transplanting Hepatitis C kidneys Into Negative KidnEy Recipients), suggested that HCV-infected kidneys could be safely transplanted into HCV-negative patients. However, intermediate-term data on quality of life and renal function are needed to counsel patients about risk. Objective: To describe 12-month HCV treatment outcomes, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and quality of life for the 10 kidney recipients in THINKER-1 and 6-month data on 10 additional recipients. Design: Open-label, nonrandomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02743897). Setting: Single center. Participants: 20 HCV-negative transplant candidates. Intervention: Participants underwent transplant with kidneys infected with genotype 1 HCV and received elbasvir-grazoprevir on posttransplant day 3. Measurements: The primary outcome was HCV cure. Exploratory outcomes included 1) RAND-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) quality-of-life scores at enrollment and after transplant, and 2) posttransplant renal function, which was compared in a 1:5 matched sample with recipients of HCV-negative kidneys. Results: The mean age of THINKER participants was 56.3 years (SD, 6.7), 70% were male, and 40% were black. All 20 participants achieved HCV cure. Hepatic and renal complications were transient or were successfully managed. Mean PCS and MCS quality-of-life scores decreased at 4 weeks; PCS scores then increased above pretransplant values, whereas MCS scores returned to baseline values. Estimated GFRs were similar between THINKER participants and matched recipients of HCV-negative kidneys at 6 months (median, 67.5 vs. 66.2 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI for between-group difference, -4.2 to 7.5 mL/min/1.73 m2) and 12 months (median, 72.8 vs. 67.2 mL/min/1.73 m2; CI for between-group difference, -7.2 to 9.8 mL/min/1.73 m2). Limitation: Small trial. Conclusion: Twenty HCV-negative recipients of HCV-infected kidneys experienced HCV cure, good quality of life, and excellent renal function. Kidneys from HCV-infected donors may be a valuable transplant resource. Primary Funding Source: Merck.

Defining Multimorbidity in Older Surgical Patients.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous definitions of multimorbidity (MM). None systematically examines specific comorbidity combinations accounting for multiple testing when exploring large datasets. OBJECTIVES: Develop and validate a list of all single, double, and triple comorbidity combinations, with each individual qualifying comorbidity set (QCS) more than doubling the odds of mortality versus its reference population. Patients with at least 1 QCS were defined as having MM. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cohort-based study with a matching validation study. SUBJECTS: All fee-for-service Medicare patients between age 65 and 85 without dementia or metastatic solid tumors undergoing general surgery in 2009-2010, and an additional 2011-2013 dataset. MEASURES: 30-day all-location mortality. RESULTS: There were 576 QCSs (2 singles, 63 doubles, and 511 triples), each set more than doubling the odds of dying. In 2011, 36% of eligible patients had MM. As a group, multimorbid patients (mortality rate=7.0%) had a mortality Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=1.90 (1.77-2.04) versus a reference that included both multimorbid and nonmultimorbid patients (mortality rate=3.3%), and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio=3.72 (3.51-3.94) versus only nonmultimorbid patients (mortality rate=1.6%). When matching 3151 pairs of multimorbid patients from low-volume hospitals to similar patients in high-volume hospitals, the mortality rates were 6.7% versus 5.2%, respectively (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: A list of QCSs identified a third of older patients undergoing general surgery that had greatly elevated mortality. These sets can be used to identify vulnerable patients and the specific combinations of comorbidities that make them susceptible to poor outcomes.

Adjustment for Atherosclerosis Diagnosis Distorts the Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the Ranking of Hospital Performance.

BACKGROUND: Coronary atherosclerosis raises the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and is usually included in AMI risk-adjustment models. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not cause atherosclerosis, but may contribute to the notation of atherosclerosis in administrative claims. We investigated how adjustment for atherosclerosis affects rankings of hospitals that perform PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 414 715 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI between 2009 and 2011. The outcome was 30-day mortality. Regression models determined the association between patient characteristics and mortality. Rankings of the 100 largest PCI and non-PCI hospitals were assessed with and without atherosclerosis adjustment. Patients admitted to PCI hospitals or receiving interventional cardiology more frequently had an atherosclerosis diagnosis. In adjustment models, atherosclerosis was associated, implausibly, with a 42% reduction in odds of mortality (odds ratio=0.58, P<0.0001). Without adjustment for atherosclerosis, the number of expected lives saved by PCI hospitals increased by 62% (P<0.001). Hospital rankings also changed: 72 of the 100 largest PCI hospitals had better ranks without atherosclerosis adjustment, while 77 of the largest non-PCI hospitals had worse ranks (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Atherosclerosis is almost always noted in patients with AMI who undergo interventional cardiology but less often in medically managed patients, so adjustment for its notation likely removes part of the effect of interventional treatment. Therefore, hospitals performing more extensive imaging and more PCIs have higher atherosclerosis diagnosis rates, making their patients appear healthier and artificially reducing the expected mortality rate against which they are benchmarked. Thus, atherosclerosis adjustment is detrimental to hospitals providing more thorough AMI care.

Failure-to-Rescue After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Failure-to-rescue (FTR), originally developed to study quality of care in surgery, measures an institution's ability to prevent death after a patient becomes complicated. OBJECTIVES: Develop an FTR metric modified to analyze acute myocardial infarction (AMI) outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: Split-sample design: a random 20% of hospitals to develop FTR definitions, a second 20% to validate test characteristics, and an out-of-sample 60% to validate results. SUBJECTS: Older Medicare beneficiaries admitted to short-term acute-care hospitals for AMI between 2009 and 2011. MEASURES: Thirty-day mortality and FTR rates, and in-hospital complication rates. RESULTS: The 60% out-of-sample validation included 234,277 patients across 1142 hospitals that admitted at least 50 patients over 2.5 years. In total, 72.1% of patients were defined as Medically Complicated (complex on admission or subsequently developed a complication or died without a recorded complication) of whom 19.3% died. Spearman r between hospital risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and FTR was 0.89 (P<0.0001); Mortality versus Complication=-0.01 (P=0.6198); FTR versus Complication=-0.10 (P=0.0011). Major teaching hospitals displayed 19% lower odds of FTR versus non-teaching hospitals (odds ratio=0.81, P<0.0001), while hospitals as a group defined by teaching hospital status, comprehensive cardiac technology, and having good nursing mix and staffing, displayed a 33% lower odds of FTR (odds ratio=0.67, P<0.0001) versus hospitals without any of these characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: A modified FTR metric can be created that has many of the advantageous properties of surgical FTR and can aid in studying the quality of care of AMI admissions.

Comparing Outcomes between Antibody Induction Therapies in Kidney Transplantation.

Kidney transplant recipients often receive antibody induction. Previous studies of induction therapy were often limited by short follow-up and/or absence of information about complications. After linking Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data with Medicare claims, we compared outcomes between three induction therapies for kidney recipients. Using novel matching techniques developed on the basis of 15 clinical and demographic characteristics, we generated 1:1 pairs of alemtuzumab-rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) (5330 pairs) and basiliximab-rATG (9378 pairs) recipients. We used paired Cox regression to analyze the primary outcomes of death and death or allograft failure. Secondary outcomes included death or sepsis, death or lymphoma, death or melanoma, and healthcare resource utilization within 1 year. Compared with rATG recipients, alemtuzumab recipients had higher risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03 to 1.26; P<0.01) and death or allograft failure (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.28; P<0.001). Results for death as well as death or allograft failure were generally consistent among elderly and nonelderly subgroups and among pairs receiving oral prednisone. Compared with rATG recipients, basiliximab recipients had higher risk of death (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.16; P=0.03) and death or lymphoma (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23; P=0.03), although these differences were not confirmed in subgroup analyses. One-year resource utilization was slightly lower among alemtuzumab recipients than among rATG recipients, but did not differ between basiliximab and rATG recipients. This observational evidence indicates that, compared with alemtuzumab and basiliximab, rATG associates with lower risk of adverse outcomes, including mortality.

Indirect Standardization Matching: Assessing Specific Advantage and Risk Synergy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a method to allow a hospital to compare its performance using its entire patient population to the outcomes of very similar patients treated elsewhere. DATA SOURCES/SETTING: Medicare claims in orthopedics and common general, gynecologic, and urologic surgery from Illinois, New York, and Texas from 2004 to 2006. STUDY DESIGN: Using two example "focal" hospitals, each hospital's patients were matched to 10 very similar patients selected from 619 other hospitals. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: All patients were used at each focal hospital, and we found the 10 closest matched patients from control hospitals with exactly the same principal procedure as each focal patient. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We achieved exact matches on all procedures and very close matches for other patient characteristics for both hospitals. There were few to no differences between each hospital's patients and their matched control patients on most patient characteristics, yet large and significant differences were observed for mortality, failure-to-rescue, and cost. CONCLUSION: Indirect standardization matching can produce fair audits of quality and cost, allowing for a comprehensive, transparent, and relevant assessment of all patients at a focal hospital. With this approach, hospitals will be better able to benchmark their performance and determine where quality improvement is most needed.

Comparison of the Value of Nursing Work Environments in Hospitals Across Different Levels of Patient Risk.

IMPORTANCE: The literature suggests that hospitals with better nursing work environments provide better quality of care. Less is known about value (cost vs quality). OBJECTIVES: To test whether hospitals with better nursing work environments displayed better value than those with worse nursing environments and to determine patient risk groups associated with the greatest value. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective matched-cohort design, comparing the outcomes and cost of patients at focal hospitals recognized nationally as having good nurse working environments and nurse-to-bed ratios of 1 or greater with patients at control group hospitals without such recognition and with nurse-to-bed ratios less than 1. This study included 25 752 elderly Medicare general surgery patients treated at focal hospitals and 62 882 patients treated at control hospitals during 2004-2006 in Illinois, New York, and Texas. The study was conducted between January 1, 2004, and November 30, 2006; this analysis was conducted from April to August 2015. EXPOSURES: Focal vs control hospitals (better vs worse nursing environment). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day mortality and costs reflecting resource utilization. RESULTS: This study was conducted at 35 focal hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 1.51) and 293 control hospitals (mean nurse-to-bed ratio, 0.69). Focal hospitals were larger and more teaching and technology intensive than control hospitals. Thirty-day mortality in focal hospitals was 4.8% vs 5.8% in control hospitals (P < .001), while the cost per patient was similar: the focal-control was -$163 (95% CI = -$542 to $215; P = .40), suggesting better value in the focal group. For the focal vs control hospitals, the greatest mortality benefit (17.3% vs 19.9%; P < .001) occurred in patients in the highest risk quintile, with a nonsignificant cost difference of $941 per patient ($53 701 vs $52 760; P = .25). The greatest difference in value between focal and control hospitals appeared in patients in the second-highest risk quintile, with mortality of 4.2% vs 5.8% (P < .001), with a nonsignificant cost difference of -$862 ($33 513 vs $34 375; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospitals with better nursing environments and above-average staffing levels were associated with better value (lower mortality with similar costs) compared with hospitals without nursing environment recognition and with below-average staffing, especially for higher-risk patients. These results do not suggest that improving any specific hospital's nursing environment will necessarily improve its value, but they do show that patients undergoing general surgery at hospitals with better nursing environments generally receive care of higher value.