Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Indicators Do Not Correlate With Risk-Adjusted Mortality at Trauma Centers
ABSTRACT The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reports hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care as quality indicators. We hypothesized that compliance with CMS quality indicators would correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients.
A previously validated risk-adjustment algorithm was used to measure observed-to-expected mortality ratios (O/E with 95% confidence interval) for Level I and II trauma centers using the National Trauma Data Bank data. Adult patients (>or=16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Score >or=3) were included (127,819 patients). Compliance with CMS quality indicators in four domains was obtained from Hospital Compare website: acute myocardial infarction (8 processes), congestive heart failure (4 processes), pneumonia (7 processes), surgical infections (3 processes). For each domain, a single composite score was calculated for each hospital. The relationship between O/E ratios and CMS quality indicators was explored using nonparametric tests.
There was no relationship between compliance with CMS quality indicators and risk-adjusted outcomes of trauma patients.
CMS quality indicators do not correlate with risk-adjusted mortality rates in trauma patients. Hence, there is a need to develop new trauma-specific process of care quality indicators to evaluate and improve quality of care in trauma centers.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Trauma Quality Improvement Project has demonstrated significant variations in risk-adjusted mortality rates across the designated trauma centers. It is not known whether the outcome differences are related to provider-level clinical decision making. We hypothesized that centers with good outcomes undertake critical operative interventions aggressively, thereby avoiding complications and deaths. The previously validated Trauma Quality Improvement Project risk-adjustment algorithm was used to measure observed-to-expected mortality rates (O/E with 90% confidence intervals [CI]) for 152 Level I and II trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Data Bank (version 7.0). Adult patients (>or=16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale score >or=3) were included (N = 135,654). Operative intervention rates for solid organ injuries (spleen, liver, and kidney) were compared between the centers classified as high mortality (O/E with CI > 1, n = 35 centers) versus low mortality (O/E with CI < 1, n = 37 centers) using nonparametric tests. Low- and high-mortality trauma centers were similar in designation level, hospital and intensive care unit beds, teaching status, and number of trauma, orthopedic, and neurosurgeons. Despite a similar incidence and severity of solid organ injuries, low-mortality centers were less likely to undertake operative interventions. Trauma centers with higher risk-adjusted mortality rates are more likely to undertake operative interventions for solid organ injuries. Hence, there is a need to focus quality improvement efforts on medical decision-making and perioperative processes of care.The Journal of trauma 07/2010; 69(1):70-7. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181e28168 · 2.96 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program has demonstrated existence of significant variations in risk-adjusted mortality across trauma centers. However, it is unknown whether centers with lower mortality rates also have reduced length of stay (LOS), with associated cost savings. We hypothesized that LOS is not primarily determined by unmodifiable factors, such as age and injury severity, but is primarily dependent on the development of potentially preventable complications. The National Trauma Data Bank (2002-2006) was used to include patients (older than 16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 3) from Level I and II trauma centers (217,610 patients, 151 centers). A previously validated risk-adjustment algorithm was used to calculate observed-to-expected mortality ratios for each center. Poisson regression was used to determine the relationship between LOS, observed-to-expected mortality ratios, and complications while controlling for confounding factors, such as age, gender, mechanism, insurance status, comorbidities, and injuries and their severity. Large variations in LOS (median, 4-8 days) were observed across trauma centers. There was no relationship between mortality and LOS. The most important predictor of LOS was complications, which were associated with a 62% increase. Injury severity score, shock, gunshot wounds, brain injuries, intensive care unit admission, and comorbidities were less important predictors of LOS. Quality improvement programs focusing on mortality alone may not be associated with reduced LOS. Hence, the Trauma Quality Improvement Program should also focus on processes of care that reduce complications, thereby shortening LOS, which may lead to significant cost savings at trauma centers.The Journal of trauma 12/2010; 69(6):1367-71. DOI:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181fb785d · 2.96 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the association between hospital self-reported compliance with the National Quality Forum patient safety practices and trauma outcomes in a nationally representative sample of level I and level II trauma centers. Retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Level I and level II trauma centers. Trauma patients. Multivariate logistic regression models were estimated to examine the association between clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality and hospital-associated infections) and the National Quality Forum patient safety practices. We controlled for patient demographic characteristics, injury severity, mechanism of injury, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. The total score on the Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey was not associated with either mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.06) or hospital-associated infections (1.03; 0.82-1.29). Full implementation of computerized physician order entry was not associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.75-1.42) or with a lower risk of hospital-associated infections (0.94; 0.57-1.56). Full implementation of intensive care unit physician staffing was also not predictive of mortality (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.28) or of hospital-associated infections (1.04; 0.76-1.42). In this nationally representative sample of level I and level II trauma centers, we were unable to detect evidence that hospitals reporting better compliance with the National Quality Forum patient safety practices had lower mortality or a lower incidence of hospital-associated infections.Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill.: 1960) 10/2011; 146(10):1170-7. DOI:10.1001/archsurg.2011.247 · 4.30 Impact Factor