Differences in Quality of Care Among Non-Safety-Net, Safety-Net, and Children's Hospitals

James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
PEDIATRICS (Impact Factor: 5.47). 01/2013; 131(2). DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1089
Source: PubMed


To understand factors associated with pediatric inpatient safety events, we test 2 hypotheses: (1) scarce resources (as measured by Medicaid burden) in safety-net hospitals relative to non-safety-net hospitals result in higher rates of safety events; and (2) higher levels of severity and more chronic conditions in patient populations lead to higher rates of safety events within hospital category and in children's hospitals in comparison with non-children's hospitals.

All nonnewborn pediatric hospital discharge records, which met criteria for potentially experiencing at least 1 pediatric quality indicator (PDI) event (using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and PDI) and weighted to represent national level estimates, were analyzed for patterns of PDI events within and across hospital categories by using bivariate comparisons and multivariable logit models with robust SEs. The outcome measure "ANY PDI" captures the number of pediatric discharges at the hospital level with 1 or more PDI event.

High Medicaid burden does not seem to be a factor in the likelihood of ANY PDI. Severity of illness (adjusted odds ratio high relative to low, 15.12) and presence of chronic conditions (adjusted odds ratio 1 relative to 0, 1.78; relative to 2 or more, 3.38) are the strongest predictors of ANY PDI events.

Our findings suggest that the patient population served, rather than hospital category, best predicts measured quality, underscoring the need for robust risk adjustment when incentivizing quality or comparing hospitals. Thus, problems of quality may not be systemic across hospital categories.

Download full-text


Available from: Linda Dynan, Nov 18, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physician rating websites (PRW) have been gaining in popularity among patients who are seeking a physician. However, little evidence is available on the number, distribution, or trend of evaluations on PRWs. Furthermore, there is no published evidence available that analyzes the characteristics of the patients who provide ratings on PRWs. The objective of the study was to analyze all physician evaluations that were posted on the German PRW, jameda, in 2012. Data from the German PRW, jameda, from 2012 were analyzed and contained 127,192 ratings of 53,585 physicians from 107,148 patients. Information included medical specialty and gender of the physician, age, gender, and health insurance status of the patient, as well as the results of the physician ratings. Statistical analysis was carried out using the median test and Kendall Tau-b test. Thirty-seven percent of all German physicians were rated on jameda in 2012. Nearly half of those physicians were rated once, and less than 2% were rated more than ten times (mean number of ratings 2.37, SD 3.17). About one third of all rated physicians were female. Rating patients were mostly female (60%), between 30-50 years (51%) and covered by Statutory Health Insurance (83%). A mean of 1.19 evaluations per patient could be calculated (SD 0.778). Most of the rated medical specialties were orthopedists, dermatologists, and gynecologists. Two thirds of all ratings could be assigned to the best category, "very good". Female physicians had significantly better ratings than did their male colleagues (P<.001). Additionally, significant rating differences existed between medical specialties (P<.001). It could further be shown that older patients gave better ratings than did their younger counterparts (P<.001). The same was true for patients covered by private health insurance; they gave more favorable evaluations than did patients covered by statutory health insurance (P<.001). No significant rating differences could be detected between female and male patients (P=.505). The likelihood of a good rating was shown to increase with a rising number of both physician and patient ratings. Our findings are mostly in line with those published for PRWs from the United States. It could be shown that most of the ratings were positive, and differences existed regarding sociodemographic characteristics of both physicians and patients. An increase in the usage of PRWs might contribute to reducing the lack of publicly available information on physician quality. However, it remains unclear whether PRWs have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by individual health care providers. Further research should assess in more detail the motivation of patients who rate their physicians online.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 08/2013; 15(8):e157. DOI:10.2196/jmir.2655 · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past decade, physician-rating websites have been gaining attention in scientific literature and in the media. However, little knowledge is available about the awareness and the impact of using such sites on health care professionals. It also remains unclear what key predictors are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. To estimate the current level of awareness and use of physician-rating websites in Germany and to determine their impact on physician choice making and the key predictors which are associated with the knowledge and the use of physician-rating websites. This study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. An online panel was consulted in January 2013. A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions; a pretest was carried out to assess the comprehension of the questionnaire. Several sociodemographic (eg, age, gender, health insurance status, Internet use) and 2 health-related independent variables (ie, health status and health care utilization) were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and t tests. Binary multivariate logistic regression models were performed for elaborating the characteristics of physician-rating website users. Results from the logistic regression are presented for both the observed and weighted sample. In total, 1505 respondents (mean age 43.73 years, SD 14.39; 857/1505, 57.25% female) completed our survey. Of all respondents, 32.09% (483/1505) heard of physician-rating websites and 25.32% (381/1505) already had used a website when searching for a physician. Furthermore, 11.03% (166/1505) had already posted a rating on a physician-rating website. Approximately 65.35% (249/381) consulted a particular physician based on the ratings shown on the websites; in contrast, 52.23% (199/381) had not consulted a particular physician because of the publicly reported ratings. Significantly higher likelihoods for being aware of the websites could be demonstrated for female participants (P<.001), those who were widowed (P=.01), covered by statutory health insurance (P=.02), and with higher health care utilization (P<.001). Health care utilization was significantly associated with all dependent variables in our multivariate logistic regression models (P<.001). Furthermore, significantly higher scores could be shown for health insurance status in the unweighted and Internet use in the weighted models. Neither health policy makers nor physicians should underestimate the influence of physician-rating websites. They already play an important role in providing information to help patients decide on an appropriate physician. Assuming there will be a rising level of public awareness, the influence of their use will increase well into the future. Future studies should assess the impact of physician-rating websites under experimental conditions and investigate whether physician-rating websites have the potential to reflect the quality of care offered by health care providers.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 08/2013; 15(8):e187. DOI:10.2196/jmir.2702 · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Pediatric obesity affects more than 16% of American children and is associated with worse outcomes in hospitalized patients. A systematic literature review was performed to identify studies of adverse care events affecting obese pediatric patients in the emergency room, operating room, or inpatient wards. Evidence review: We systematically searched Medline for articles published from 1970 to 2013 regarding obesity and patient safety events in pediatric acute care settings. We determined the study design, number of patients studied, definition and prevalence of obesity, the relevant acute care setting, the specific association with obesity addressed, and the results of each study. Results and conclusion: Thirty-four studies documented both procedural complications and issues with general hospital care. Most were retrospective and focused on surgery or anesthesia. Obese patients may have increased risk for a variety of adverse events. Further study could improve institutional patient safety guidelines to enhance care for obese children.
    Clinical Pediatrics 05/2014; 53(10). DOI:10.1177/0009922814533406 · 1.15 Impact Factor
Show more