Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

Reported Variation in Hospital Billing Quality.

This study examines how US hospitals perform on billing quality measures, including legal actions taken by a hospital to collect medical debt, the timeliness of sending patients an itemized billing statement, and patient access to a qualified billing representative.

Optimising ePrescribing in hospitals through the interoperability of systems and processes: a qualitative study in the UK, US, Norway and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Investment in the implementation of hospital ePrescribing systems has been a priority in many economically-developed countries in order to modernise the delivery of healthcare. However, maximum gains in the safety, quality and efficiency of care are unlikely to be fully realised unless ePrescribing systems are further optimised in a local context. Typical barriers to optimal use are often encountered in relation to a lack of systemic capacity and preparedness to meet various levels of interoperability requirements, including at the data, systems and services levels. This lack of systemic interoperability may in turn limit the opportunities and benefits potentially arising from implementing novel digital heath systems. METHODS: We undertook n = 54 qualitative interviews with key stakeholders at nine digitally advanced hospital sites across the UK, US, Norway and the Netherlands. We included hospitals featuring 'standalone, best of breed' systems, which were interfaced locally, and multi-component and integrated electronic health record enterprise systems. We analysed the data inductively, looking at strategies and constraints for ePrescribing interoperability within and beyond hospital systems. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis identified 4 main drivers for increasing ePrescribing systems interoperability: (1) improving patient safety (2) improving integration & continuity of care (3) optimising care pathways and providing tailored decision support to meet local and contextualised care priorities and (4) to enable full patient care services interoperability in a variety of settings and contexts. These 4 interoperability dimensions were not always pursued equally at each implementation site, and these were often dependent on the specific national, policy, organisational or technical contexts of the ePrescribing implementations. Safety and efficiency objectives drove optimisation targeted at infrastructure and governance at all levels. Constraints to interoperability came from factors such as legacy systems, but barriers to interoperability of processes came from system capability, hospital policy and staff culture. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving interoperability is key in making ePrescribing systems both safe and useable. Data resources exist at macro, meso and micro levels, as do the governance interventions necessary to achieve system interoperability. Strategic objectives, most notably improved safety, often motivated hospitals to push for evolution across the entire data architecture of which they formed a part. However, hospitals negotiated this terrain with varying degrees of centralised coordination. Hospitals were heavily reliant on staff buy-in to ensure that systems interoperability was built upon to achieve effective data sharing and use. Positive outcomes were founded on a culture of agreement about the usefulness of access by stakeholders, including prescribers, policymakers, vendors and lab technicians, which was reflected in an alignment of governance goals with system design.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

This Viewpoint discusses Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements, a set of guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help hospitals develop multiprofessional programs that monitor and optimize management and outcomes of sepsis.

The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Assessment of Patient Education Delivered at Time of Hospital Discharge.

Importance: Patient education at time of hospital discharge is critical for smooth transitions of care; however, empirical data regarding discharge communication are limited. Objective: To describe whether key communication domains (medication changes, follow-up appointments, disease self-management, red flags, question solicitation, and teach-back) were addressed at the bedside on the day of hospital discharge, by whom, and for how long. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from September 2018 through October 2019 at inpatient medicine floors in 2 urban, tertiary-care teaching hospitals and purposefully sampled patients designated as "discharge before noon." Data analysis was performed from September 2018 to May 2020. Exposures: A trained bedside observer documented all content and duration of staff communication with a single enrolled patient from 7 am until discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Presence of the key communication domains, role of team members, and amount of time spent at the bedside. Results: Discharge days for 33 patients were observed. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 63 (18) years; 14 (42%) identified as White, 15 (45%) were female, and 6 (18%) had a preferred language of Spanish. Thirty patients were discharged with at least 1 medication change. Of these patients, 8 (27%) received no verbal instruction on the change, while 16 of 30 (53%) were informed but not told the purpose of the changes. About half of the patients (15 of 31, 48%) were not told the reason for follow-up appointments, and 18 of 33 (55%) were not given instructions on posthospital disease self-management. Most patients (27 of 33, 81%) did not receive guidance on red-flag signs. While over half of the patients (19 of 33, 58%) were asked if they had any questions, only 1 patient was asked to teach back his understanding of the discharge plan. Median (IQR) total time spent with patients on the day of discharge by interns, senior residents, attending physicians, and nurses was 4.0 (0.75-6.0), 1.0 (0-2.0), 3.0 (0.5-7.0), and 22.5 (15.5-30.0) minutes, respectively. Most of the time was spent discussing logistics rather than discharge education. Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study, patients infrequently received discharge education in key communication domains, potentially leaving gaps in patient knowledge. Interventions to improve the hospital discharge process should address the content, method of delivery, and transparency among team members regarding patient education.

Organization and Performance of US Health Systems.

Importance: Health systems play a central role in the delivery of health care, but relatively little is known about these organizations and their performance. Objective: To (1) identify and describe health systems in the United States; (2) assess differences between physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems; and (3) compare quality and cost of care delivered by physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems. Evidence Review: Health systems were defined as groups of commonly owned or managed entities that included at least 1 general acute care hospital, 10 primary care physicians, and 50 total physicians located within a single hospital referral region. They were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data, Internal Revenue Service filings, Medicare and commercial claims, and other data. Health systems were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems. Quality of preventive care, chronic disease management, patient experience, low-value care, mortality, hospital readmissions, and spending were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to system and nonsystem physicians. Prices for physician and hospital services and total spending were assessed in 2018 commercial claims data. Outcomes were adjusted for patient characteristics and geographic area. Findings: A total of 580 health systems were identified and varied greatly in size. Systems accounted for 40% of physicians and 84% of general acute care hospital beds and delivered primary care to 41% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system physicians (80%) and system hospital beds (64%). System hospitals were larger than nonsystem hospitals (67% vs 23% with >100 beds), as were system physician practices (74% vs 12% with >100 physicians). Performance on measures of preventive care, clinical quality, and patient experience was modestly higher for health system physicians and hospitals than for nonsystem physicians and hospitals. Prices paid to health system physicians and hospitals were significantly higher than prices paid to nonsystem physicians and hospitals (12%-26% higher for physician services, 31% for hospital services). Adjusting for practice size attenuated health systems differences on quality measures, but price differences for small and medium practices remained large. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, health system physicians and hospitals delivered a large portion of medical services. Performance on clinical quality and patient experience measures was marginally better in systems but spending and prices were substantially higher. This was especially true for small practices. Small quality differentials combined with large price differentials suggests that health systems have not, on average, realized their potential for better care at equal or lower cost.

Combined laparoscopic and open colon surgery rankings fail to accurately rank hospitals by surgical-site infection rate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for hospital ranking based on colon surgical-site infection (SSI) rate by combining all colon procedures versus stratifying by surgical approach (ie, laparoscopic vs open). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We identified SSIs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colon surgery from 2009 through 2013 using previously validated methods. We created a risk prediction model for SSI using age, sex, race, comorbidities, surgical approach (laparoscopy vs open), and concomitant colon and noncolon procedures. Adjusted SSI rates were used to rank hospitals. Subanalyses were performed for common colon procedures and procedure types for which there were both open and laparoscopic procedures. We generated ranks using only open and only laparoscopic procedures, overall and for each subanalysis. Rankings were compared using a Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: In total, 694,813 colon procedures were identified among 508,135 Medicare beneficiaries. The overall SSI rate was 7.6%. The laparoscopic approach was associated with lower SSI risk (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.5), and higher SSI risk was associated with concomitant abdominal surgeries (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5) and higher Elixhauser score (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1). Hospital rankings for laparascopic procedures were poorly correlated with rankings for open procedures (r = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital rankings based on total colon procedures fail to account for differences in SSI risk from laparoscopic vs open procedures. Stratifying rankings by surgical approach yields a more equitable comparison of surgical performance.

Changes in In-Hospital Survival and Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcomes of Extremely Preterm Infants: A Retrospective Study of a Japanese Tertiary Center.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to elucidate whether the survival and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of extremely preterm infants have improved in a Japanese tertiary center with an active treatment policy for infants born at 22-23 weeks of gestation. STUDY DESIGN: This single-centered retrospective cohort study enrolled extremely preterm infants treated at Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, from 2003 to 2014. Patients with major congenital abnormalities were excluded. Primary outcomes were in-hospital survival and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 6 years of age, which was defined as having severe cerebral palsy, severe cognitive impairment, severe visual impairment, or deafness. We assessed the changes in primary outcomes between the first (period 1; 2003-2008) and the second half (period 2; 2009-2014) of the study period and evaluated the association between birth-year and primary outcomes using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 403 eligible patients, 340 (84%) survived to discharge. Among 248 patients available at 6 years of age, 43 (14%) were classified as having severe NDI. Between the 2 periods, in-hospital survival improved from 155 of 198 (78%) to 185 of 205 (90%), but severe NDI increased from 11 of 108 (10%) to 32 of 140 (23%). In multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for gestational age, birthweight, sex, singleton birth, and antenatal corticosteroids, the aOR (95% CI) of birth-year for in-hospital survival and severe NDI was 1.2 (1.1-1.3) and 1.1 (1.0-1.3), respectively. CONCLUSION: Mortality among extremely preterm infants has improved over the past 12 years; nevertheless, no significant improvement was observed in the long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.

The Impact of Cultural Factors, The Level of Health Education Received by the Caregivers, and Stigma on Asthma Treatment among Children in Southern Jordan

Abstract For asthma treatment in children, caregivers need good knowledge and attitudes regarding the disease and its treatment. This study aimed to determine the impact of cultural factors, the level of health education provided to patients and their families, as well as the impact of stigmatization on the treatment awareness of children with asthma in southern Jordan. A validated questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample of ninety-seven caregivers selected from three hospitals in southern Jordan. Open ended questions were answered after demonstrating the inhaler technique in and evaluated according to the instructions of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP, 2013). The result revealed moderate knowledge of asthma with a mean score of (22.36/32), as well as moderate knowledge of asthma treatment (24.26/40). A high mean was found for the impact of cultural and environmental factors (22.93/28), whereas low impact was found for stigma with a mean value of (4.73/12). Therefore, to improve future asthma management, additional efforts are required to educate caregivers and improve their asthma awareness and rectify any falsehoods regarding asthma medications by health care providers.

Association of Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced With Medicare Spending and Hospital Incentive Payments.

Importance: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) is a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) initiative that aims to produce financial savings by incentivizing decreases in clinical spending. Incentives consist of financial bonuses from CMS to hospitals or penalties paid by hospitals to CMS. Objective: To investigate the association of hospital participation in BPCI-A with spending, and to characterize hospitals receiving financial bonuses vs penalties. Design, Setting, and Participants: Difference-in-differences and cross-sectional analyses of 4 754 139 patient episodes using 2013-2019 US Medicare claims at 694 participating and 2852 nonparticipating hospitals merged with hospital and market characteristics. Exposures: BPCI-A model years 1 and 2 (October 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitals' per-episode spending, CMS gross and net spending, and the incentive allocated to each hospital. Results: The study identified 694 participating hospitals. The analysis observed a -$175 change in mean per-episode spending (95% CI, -$378 to $28) and an aggregate spending change of -$75.1 million (95% CI, -$162.1 million to $12.0 million) across the 428 670 episodes in BPCI-A model years 1 and 2. However, CMS disbursed $354.3 million (95% CI, $212.0 million to $496.0 million) more in bonuses than it received in penalties. Hospital participation in BPCI-A was associated with a net loss to CMS of $279.2 million (95% CI, $135.0 million to $423.0 million). Hospitals in the lowest quartile of Medicaid days received a mean penalty of $0.41 million; (95% CI, $0.09 million to $0.72 million), while those in the highest quartile received a mean bonus of $1.57 million; (95% CI, $1.09 million to $2.08 million). Similar patterns were observed for hospitals across increasing quartiles of Disproportionate Share Hospital percentage and of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US hospitals measured between 2013 and 2019, participation in BPCI-A was significantly associated with an increase in net CMS spending. Bonuses accrued disproportionately to hospitals providing care for marginalized communities.

Readmission Reduction as a Hospital Quality Measure: Time to Move on to More Pressing Concerns?

The authors of this Viewpoint argue that the focus on hospital readmission rates as a measure of quality during the past decade, although undoubtedly leading to some improvements in care, has had minimal demonstrable benefit and has even distracted clinicians and health system leaders from other crucial quality concerns.

Hospital Rankings and Health Equity.

This Viewpoint examines US News & World Report's approach to evaluating and publicly reporting hospital performance in various aspects of health equity as well as describes several novel equity measures published as part of its "Best Hospitals" rankings program.