Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction: How should emergency department transfers be attributed

Zaza Samadashvili, Edward L. Hannan, Kimberly Cozzens, Gary Walford, Alice K. Jacobs, Peter B. Berger, David Holmes, Ferdinand J. Venditti, Jeptha Curtis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) to assess quality of care for hospitals that treat acute myocardial infarction patients, and the outcomes for inpatient transfers are attributed to transferring hospitals. However, emergency department (ED) transfers are currently ignored and therefore attributed to receiving hospitals. Methods: New York State administrative data were used to develop a statistical model similar to the one used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to risk-adjust hospital 30-day mortality rates. RSMRs were calculated and outliers were identified when ED transfers were attributed to: (1) the transferring hospital and (2) the receiving hospital. Differences in hospital outlier status and RSMR tertile between the 2 attribution methods were noted for hospitals performing and not performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Results: Although both methods of attribution identified 3 high outlier non-PCI hospitals, only 2 of those hospitals were identified by both methods, and each method identified a different hospital as a third outlier. Also, when transfers were attributed to the referring hospital, 1 non-PCI hospital was identified as a low outlier, and no non-PCI hospitals were identified as a low outlier with the other attribution method. About one sixth of all hospitals changed their tertile status. Most PCI hospitals (89%) that changed status moved to a higher (worse RSMR) tertile, whereas the majority of non-PCI hospitals (68%) that changed status were moved to a lower (better) RSMR tertile when ED transfers were attributed to the referring hospital. Conclusions: Hospital quality assessments for acute myocardial infarction are affected by whether ED transfers are assigned to the transferring or receiving hospital. The pros and cons of this choice should be considered.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)245-252
Number of pages8
JournalMedical Care
Volume53
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 28 2015

Fingerprint

Hospital Emergency Service
Myocardial Infarction
Mortality
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (U.S.)
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Quality of Health Care
Statistical Models

Keywords

  • acute myocardial infarction
  • assessment of hospital performance
  • risk-standardized mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Samadashvili, Z., Hannan, E. L., Cozzens, K., Walford, G., Jacobs, A. K., Berger, P. B., ... Curtis, J. (2015). Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction: How should emergency department transfers be attributed. Medical Care, 53(3), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000305

Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction : How should emergency department transfers be attributed. / Samadashvili, Zaza; Hannan, Edward L.; Cozzens, Kimberly; Walford, Gary; Jacobs, Alice K.; Berger, Peter B.; Holmes, David; Venditti, Ferdinand J.; Curtis, Jeptha.

In: Medical Care, Vol. 53, No. 3, 28.02.2015, p. 245-252.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Samadashvili, Z, Hannan, EL, Cozzens, K, Walford, G, Jacobs, AK, Berger, PB, Holmes, D, Venditti, FJ & Curtis, J 2015, 'Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction: How should emergency department transfers be attributed', Medical Care, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000305
Samadashvili, Zaza ; Hannan, Edward L. ; Cozzens, Kimberly ; Walford, Gary ; Jacobs, Alice K. ; Berger, Peter B. ; Holmes, David ; Venditti, Ferdinand J. ; Curtis, Jeptha. / Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction : How should emergency department transfers be attributed. In: Medical Care. 2015 ; Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 245-252.
@article{d11e8f5d91914c33ac2bc6b88fdc8059,
title = "Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction: How should emergency department transfers be attributed",
abstract = "Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) to assess quality of care for hospitals that treat acute myocardial infarction patients, and the outcomes for inpatient transfers are attributed to transferring hospitals. However, emergency department (ED) transfers are currently ignored and therefore attributed to receiving hospitals. Methods: New York State administrative data were used to develop a statistical model similar to the one used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to risk-adjust hospital 30-day mortality rates. RSMRs were calculated and outliers were identified when ED transfers were attributed to: (1) the transferring hospital and (2) the receiving hospital. Differences in hospital outlier status and RSMR tertile between the 2 attribution methods were noted for hospitals performing and not performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Results: Although both methods of attribution identified 3 high outlier non-PCI hospitals, only 2 of those hospitals were identified by both methods, and each method identified a different hospital as a third outlier. Also, when transfers were attributed to the referring hospital, 1 non-PCI hospital was identified as a low outlier, and no non-PCI hospitals were identified as a low outlier with the other attribution method. About one sixth of all hospitals changed their tertile status. Most PCI hospitals (89{\%}) that changed status moved to a higher (worse RSMR) tertile, whereas the majority of non-PCI hospitals (68{\%}) that changed status were moved to a lower (better) RSMR tertile when ED transfers were attributed to the referring hospital. Conclusions: Hospital quality assessments for acute myocardial infarction are affected by whether ED transfers are assigned to the transferring or receiving hospital. The pros and cons of this choice should be considered.",
keywords = "acute myocardial infarction, assessment of hospital performance, risk-standardized mortality",
author = "Zaza Samadashvili and Hannan, {Edward L.} and Kimberly Cozzens and Gary Walford and Jacobs, {Alice K.} and Berger, {Peter B.} and David Holmes and Venditti, {Ferdinand J.} and Jeptha Curtis",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1097/MLR.0000000000000305",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "245--252",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Hospital Performance for Acute Myocardial Infarction

T2 - How should emergency department transfers be attributed

AU - Samadashvili, Zaza

AU - Hannan, Edward L.

AU - Cozzens, Kimberly

AU - Walford, Gary

AU - Jacobs, Alice K.

AU - Berger, Peter B.

AU - Holmes, David

AU - Venditti, Ferdinand J.

AU - Curtis, Jeptha

PY - 2015/2/28

Y1 - 2015/2/28

N2 - Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) to assess quality of care for hospitals that treat acute myocardial infarction patients, and the outcomes for inpatient transfers are attributed to transferring hospitals. However, emergency department (ED) transfers are currently ignored and therefore attributed to receiving hospitals. Methods: New York State administrative data were used to develop a statistical model similar to the one used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to risk-adjust hospital 30-day mortality rates. RSMRs were calculated and outliers were identified when ED transfers were attributed to: (1) the transferring hospital and (2) the receiving hospital. Differences in hospital outlier status and RSMR tertile between the 2 attribution methods were noted for hospitals performing and not performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Results: Although both methods of attribution identified 3 high outlier non-PCI hospitals, only 2 of those hospitals were identified by both methods, and each method identified a different hospital as a third outlier. Also, when transfers were attributed to the referring hospital, 1 non-PCI hospital was identified as a low outlier, and no non-PCI hospitals were identified as a low outlier with the other attribution method. About one sixth of all hospitals changed their tertile status. Most PCI hospitals (89%) that changed status moved to a higher (worse RSMR) tertile, whereas the majority of non-PCI hospitals (68%) that changed status were moved to a lower (better) RSMR tertile when ED transfers were attributed to the referring hospital. Conclusions: Hospital quality assessments for acute myocardial infarction are affected by whether ED transfers are assigned to the transferring or receiving hospital. The pros and cons of this choice should be considered.

AB - Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services publicly reports risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) to assess quality of care for hospitals that treat acute myocardial infarction patients, and the outcomes for inpatient transfers are attributed to transferring hospitals. However, emergency department (ED) transfers are currently ignored and therefore attributed to receiving hospitals. Methods: New York State administrative data were used to develop a statistical model similar to the one used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to risk-adjust hospital 30-day mortality rates. RSMRs were calculated and outliers were identified when ED transfers were attributed to: (1) the transferring hospital and (2) the receiving hospital. Differences in hospital outlier status and RSMR tertile between the 2 attribution methods were noted for hospitals performing and not performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). Results: Although both methods of attribution identified 3 high outlier non-PCI hospitals, only 2 of those hospitals were identified by both methods, and each method identified a different hospital as a third outlier. Also, when transfers were attributed to the referring hospital, 1 non-PCI hospital was identified as a low outlier, and no non-PCI hospitals were identified as a low outlier with the other attribution method. About one sixth of all hospitals changed their tertile status. Most PCI hospitals (89%) that changed status moved to a higher (worse RSMR) tertile, whereas the majority of non-PCI hospitals (68%) that changed status were moved to a lower (better) RSMR tertile when ED transfers were attributed to the referring hospital. Conclusions: Hospital quality assessments for acute myocardial infarction are affected by whether ED transfers are assigned to the transferring or receiving hospital. The pros and cons of this choice should be considered.

KW - acute myocardial infarction

KW - assessment of hospital performance

KW - risk-standardized mortality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84923920522&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84923920522&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000305

DO - 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000305

M3 - Article

C2 - 25675402

AN - SCOPUS:84923920522

VL - 53

SP - 245

EP - 252

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 3

ER -