Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: Excessive interhospital variation threatens healthcare quality. Data on variation in patient outcomes across the whole cardiovascular spectrum are lacking. We aimed to examine interhospital variability for 28 cardiovascular All Patient Refined-Diagnosis-related Groups (APR-DRGs). Methods: We studied 103,299 cardiovascular admissions in 99 (98%) Belgian acute-care hospitals between 2012 and 2018. Using generalized linear mixed models, we estimated hospital-specific and APR-DRG-specific risk-standardized rates for in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmissions, and length-of-stay above the APR-DRG-specific 90th percentile. Interhospital variation was assessed based on estimated variance components and time trends between the 2012–2014 and 2016–2018 periods were examined. Results: There was strong evidence of interhospital variation, with statistically significant variation across the 3 outcomes for 5 APR-DRGs after accounting for patient and hospital factors: percutaneous cardiovascular procedures with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, hypertension, angina pectoris, and arrhythmia. Medical diagnoses, with in particular hypertension, heart failure, angina pectoris, and cardiac arrest, showed strongest variability, with hypertension displaying the largest median odds ratio for mortality (2.51). Overall, hospitals performing at the upper-quartile level should achieve improvements to the median level, and an annual 633 deaths, 322 readmissions, and 1578 extended hospital stays could potentially be avoided. Conclusions: Analysis of interhospital variation highlights important outcome differences that are not explained by known patient or hospital characteristics. Targeting variation is therefore a promising strategy to improve cardiovascular care. Considering their treatment in multidisciplinary teams, policy makers, and managers should prioritize heart failure, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and angina pectoris improvements by targeting guideline implementation outside the cardiology department.
Wilder et al. (Tue,) studied this question.