Article

Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes in Critical Access Rural Hospitals

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 07/2011; 306(1):45-52. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.902
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play a crucial role in the US rural safety net. Current policy efforts have focused primarily on helping these small, isolated hospitals remain financially viable to ensure access for individuals living in rural areas in the United States; however, little is known about the quality of care they provide or the outcomes their patients achieve.
To examine the quality of care and patient outcomes at CAHs and to understand why patterns of care might differ for CAHs vs non-CAHs.
A retrospective analysis in 4738 US hospitals of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (10,703 for CAHs vs 469,695 for non-CAHs), congestive heart failure (CHF) (52,927 for CAHs vs 958,790 for non-CAHs), and pneumonia (86,359 for CAHs vs 773,227 for non-CAHs) who were discharged in 2008-2009.
Clinical capabilities, performance on processes of care, and 30-day mortality rates, adjusted for age, sex, race, and medical comorbidities.
Compared with other hospitals (n = 3470), 1268 CAHs (26.8%) were less likely to have intensive care units (380 [30.0%] vs 2581 [74.4%], P < .001), cardiac catheterization capabilities (6 [0.5%] vs 1654 [47.7%], P < .001), and at least basic electronic health records (80 [6.5%] vs 445 [13.9%], P < .001). The CAHs had lower performance on processes of care than non-CAHs for all 3 conditions examined (concordance with Hospital Quality Alliance process measures for AMI, 91.0% [95% CI, 89.7%-92.3%] vs 97.8% [95% CI, 97.7%-97.9%]; for CHF, 80.6% [95% CI, 79.2%-82.0%] vs 93.5% [95% CI, 93.3%-93.7%]; and for pneumonia, 89.3% [95% CI, 88.6%-90.0%] vs 93.7% [95% CI, 93.6%-93.9%]; P < .001 for each). Patients admitted to CAHs had higher 30-day mortality rates for each condition than those admitted to non-CAHs (for AMI: 23.5% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-1.80; P < .001; for CHF: 13.4% vs 10.9%; adjusted OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32; P < .001; and for pneumonia: 14.1% vs 12.1%; adjusted OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P < .001).
Compared with non-CAHs, CAHs had fewer clinical capabilities, worse measured processes of care, and higher mortality rates for patients with AMI, CHF, or pneumonia.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Karen E Joynt, Jul 06, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
204 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: There is an increased focus internationally on the social mandate of postgraduate training programs. This study explores specialty residents’ perceptions of the impact of the University of Calgary’s (UC) distributed education rotations on their self-perceived likelihood of practice location, and if this effect is influenced by resident specialty or stage of program. Methods: Residents participating in the UC Distributed Royal College Initiative (DistRCI) between July 2010 and June 2013 completed an online survey following their rotation. Descriptive statistics and student’s t-test were employed to analyze quantitative survey data, and a constant comparative approach was used to analyze free text qualitative responses. Results: Residents indicated they were satisfied with the program (92%), and that the distributed rotations significantly increased their self-reported likelihood of practicing in smaller centers (p Conclusion: The findings highlight the value of a distributed education program in contributing to future practice and career development, and its relevance in the social accountability of postgraduate programs.
    Medical Teacher 12/2014; DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2014.993952
  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2011; 306(1):96-7. DOI:10.1001/jama.2011.928
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Little information is available on the problem of chronic pain among homeless individuals. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of and treatments for chronic pain, barriers to pain management, concurrent medical conditions, and substance use among a representative sample of homeless single adult shelter users who experience chronic pain in Toronto, Canada. Participants were randomly selected at shelters for single homeless adults between September 2007 and February 2008 and screened for chronic pain, defined as having pain in the body for ≥ 3 months or receiving treatment for pain that started ≥ 3 months ago. Cross-sectional surveys obtained information on demographic characteristics, characteristics of and treatments for chronic pain, barriers to pain management, concurrent medical conditions, and substance use. Whenever possible, participants' physicians were also interviewed. Among 152 homeless participants who experienced chronic pain, 11 (8%) were classified as Chronic Pain Grade I (low disability-low intensity), 47 (32%) as Grade II (low disability-high intensity), 34 (23%) as Grade III (high disability-moderately limiting), and 54 (37%) as Grade IV (high disability-severely limiting). The most common self-reported barriers to pain management were stress of shelter life, inability to afford prescription medications, and poor sleeping conditions. Participants reported using over-the-counter medications (48%), street drugs (46%), prescribed medications (43%), and alcohol (29%) to treat their pain. Of the 61 interviewed physicians, only 51% reported treating the patient's pain. The most common physician-reported difficulties with pain management were reluctance to prescribe narcotics due to the patient's history of substance abuse, psychiatric comorbidities, frequently missed appointments, and difficulty getting the patient to take medications correctly. Clinicians who provide healthcare for homeless people should screen for chronic pain and discuss barriers to effective pain management with their patients.
    BMC Family Practice 07/2011; 12:73. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-12-73