Article

Relationship of hospital teaching status with quality of care and mortality for Medicare patients with acute MI

University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1530 Third Ave S, MEB 621, Birmingham, AL 35294-3296, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 10/2000;
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT CONTEXT: Issues of cost and quality are gaining importance in the delivery of medical care, and whether quality of care is better in teaching vs nonteaching hospitals is an essential question in this current national debate. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of hospital teaching status with quality of care and mortality for fee-for-service Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Analysis of Cooperative Cardiovascular Project data for 114,411 Medicare patients from 4361 hospitals (22,354 patients from 439 major teaching hospitals, 22,493 patients from 455 minor teaching hospitals, and 69,564 patients from 3467 nonteaching hospitals) who had AMI between February 1994 and July 1995. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Administration of reperfusion therapy on admission, aspirin during hospitalization, and beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors at discharge for patients meeting strict inclusion criteria; mortality at 30, 60, and 90 days and 2 years after admission. RESULTS: Among major teaching, minor teaching, and nonteaching hospitals, respectively, administration rates for aspirin were 91.2%, 86.4%, and 81.4% (P<.001); for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, 63. 7%, 60.0%, and 58.0% (P<.001); for beta-blockers, 48.8%, 40.3%, and 36.4% (P<.001); and for reperfusion therapy, 55.5%, 58.9%, and 55.2% (P =.29). Differences in unadjusted 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 2-year mortality among hospitals were significant at P<.001 for all time periods, with a gradient of increasing mortality from major teaching to minor teaching to nonteaching hospitals. Mortality differences were attenuated by adjustment for patient characteristics and were almost eliminated by additional adjustment for receipt of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of elderly patients with AMI, admission to a teaching hospital was associated with better quality of care based on 3 of 4 quality indicators and lower mortality. JAMA. 2000;284:1256-1262

Full-text

Available from: Robert Centor, Mar 31, 2015
0 Bookmarks
 · 
94 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and Objectives:Fibrinolytic therapy or percutaneous coronary intervention are different forms of reperfusion therapy for an acute myocardial infarction. The aim of this study was to assess the differences in the early managements, including reperfusion therapy and inhospital outcomes, of patients with acute myo-cardial infarction (MI) between hospitals with and without coronary revascularization facilities. Subjects and Methods:The clinical characteristics, reperfusion therapy, initial medical treatments, frequency of invasive and non-invasive studies and inhospital mortalities of 962 and 433 acute myocardial infarction patients in hospi-tals with and without coronary revascularization facilities, respectively, between 1995 and 2000, were retro-spectively compared. Results:There were no differences in the clinical characteristics between two groups. There was also no difference in the rate of reperfusion therapy between two groups (57.9 vs. 58.0 %, p=NS). Patients in hospitals with coronary revascularization facilities more often underwent coronary angiography (18.9 vs. 61.4%, p<0.01), but less often underwent stress tests (16.2 vs. 40.5%, p<0.05). The hospital mortalities were 9.7 and 9.8%, respectively, in hospitals with and without coronary revascularization facilities (p=NS). Conclusion:Those patients with acute MI admitted to hospital without coronary revascularization facilities appear to have a similar likelihood of receiving reperfusion therapy and other medications, including aspirin and beta-blockers, and similar inhospital outcomes to those admitted to hospitals with such facilities.
    01/2004; 34(11). DOI:10.4070/kcj.2004.34.11.1043
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is increasing emphasis on optimizing evidence-based medication (EBM) persistence as a means to improve longitudinal patient outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (MI); yet it is unknown whether differences in medication persistence exist between patients discharged from academic versus nonacademic hospitals. We linked Medicare pharmacy claims data with 3,184 patients with non–ST-segment elevation MI >65 years of age who were treated in 2006 at 253 hospitals participating in the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines registry. Using multivariate regression, we compared persistent filling of β blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers, clopidogrel, and statins at 90 days and 1 year postdischarge between patients discharged from academic and nonacademic hospitals. Patients treated at academic hospitals were more frequently nonwhite (19% vs 8%, p <0.001) and had a greater co-morbidity burden (Charlson score ≥4 in 36% vs 30%, p = 0.001) than patients treated at nonacademic hospitals. Composite persistence to all EBMs prescribed at discharge was low and not significantly different between academic and nonacademic hospitals at 90 days (46% vs 45%, adjusted incidence rate ratio = 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04) and at 1 year (39% vs 39%, adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.07). Rates of persistence to EBMs were similar between patients with MI >65 years old treated at academic versus nonacademic hospitals; however, persistence rates are low both early and late postdischarge, highlighting a continued need for quality improvement efforts to optimize post-MI management.
    The American Journal of Cardiology 11/2014; 114(10). DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.08.010 · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Breast cancer patients are confronted with a serious diagnosis that requires them to make important decisions throughout the journey of the disease. For these decisions to be made it is critical that the patients be well informed. Previous studies have been consistent in their findings that breast cancer patients have a high need for information on a wide range of topics. This paper investigates (1) how many patients feel they have unmet information needs after initial surgery, (2) whether the proportion of patients with unmet information needs varies between hospitals where they were treated and (3) whether differences between the hospitals account for some of these variation.Methods Data from 5,024 newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients treated in 111 breast center hospitals in Germany were analyzed and combined with data on hospital characteristics. Multilevel linear regression models were calculated taking into account hospital characteristics and adjusting for patient case mix.ResultsYounger patients, those receiving mastectomy, having statutory health insurance, not living with a partner and having a foreign native language report higher unmet information needs. The data demonstrate small between-hospital variation in unmet information needs. In hospitals that provide patient-specific information material and that offer health fairs as well as those that are non-teaching or have lower patient-volume, patients are less likely to report unmet information needs.Conclusion We found differences in proportions of patients with unmet information needs between hospitals and that hospitals¿ structure and process-related attributes of the hospitals were associated with these differences to some extent. Hospitals may contribute to reducing the patients¿ information needs by means that are not necessarily resource-intensive.
    BMC Health Services Research 11/2014; 14(1):601. DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0601-6 · 1.66 Impact Factor