Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this study, 675 general medicine admissions at a university teaching hospital were reviewed to evaluate six potential generic quality screens: 1) in-hospital death; 2) 28-day early readmission; 3) low patient satisfaction; 4) worsening severity of illness (as determined by an increase in Laboratory Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation APACHE-L); and 5) deviations from expected hospital length of stay; and 6) expected ancillary resource use. The quality of care for a stratified random sample of admissions were evaluated using structured implicit review (inter-rater reliability, Kappa=0.5). Patients who died in-hospital were substantially more likely than those who were discharged alive to be rated as having had substandard care (30% vs. 10%; P<0.001). In contrast, cases who had subsequent early readmissions did not have poorer quality ratings. Similarly, lower patient satisfaction was not associated with poorer ratings of technical process of care. Cases with lower-than-expected ancillary resource use (case-mix adjusted for diagnosis-related group) were more likely to be rated as having received substandard care than those with higher-than-expected resource use (16% vs. 6%; P<0.05), and there was a similar trend for cases with shorter than expected length of stays. Associations between worsening severity of illness, as determined by APACHE-L scores, and quality were confounded because such patients were more likely to have died in-hospital. When deaths were excluded from the analysis, we found no association between increases in APACHE-L scores during the hospital course and quality of care. It was found that in-hospital death and lower-than-expected ancillary resource use were associated with poorer implicit quality ratings, but that early readmission, lower patient satisfaction, and increases in APACHE-L scores were not. Quality screens, such as early readmissions, should be critically evaluated before being used administratively.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hayward et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: