Search

Background: We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. Objective: To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region. Design: A matched cohort study Participants: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals. Main Measures: 30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality. Key Results: 30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality. Limitations: The study used claims-based data. Conclusions: In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term "multimorbidity" identifies high-risk, complex patients and is conventionally defined as ≥2 comorbidities. However, this labels almost all older patients as multimorbid, making this definition less useful for physicians, hospitals, and policymakers. Objective: Develop new medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia patients. We developed three medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions as the presence of single, double, or triple combinations of comorbidities — called Qualifying Comorbidity Sets (QCSs) — associated with at least doubling the risk of 30-day mortality for AMI and pneumonia, or one-and-a-half times for HF patients, compared to typical patients with these conditions. Design: Cohort-based matching study Participants: One hundred percent Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with inpatient admissions between 2016 and 2019 for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Main Measures: Thirty-day all-location mortality Key Results: We defined multimorbidity as the presence of ≥1 QCS. The new definitions labeled fewer patients as multimorbid with a much higher risk of death compared to the conventional definition (≥2 comorbidities). The proportions of patients labeled as multimorbid using the new definition versus the conventional definition were: for AMI 47% versus 87% (p value<0.0001), HF 53% versus 98% (p value<0.0001), and pneumonia 57% versus 91% (p value<0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher among patients with ≥1 QCS compared to ≥2 comorbidities: for AMI 15.0% versus 9.5% (p<0.0001), HF 9.9% versus 7.0% (p <0.0001), and pneumonia 18.4% versus 13.2% (p <0.0001). Conclusion: The presence of ≥2 comorbidities identified almost all patients as multimorbid. In contrast, our new QCS-based definitions selected more specific combinations of comorbidities associated with substantial excess risk in older patients admitted for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Thus, our new definitions offer a better approach to identifying multimorbid patients, allowing physicians, hospitals, and policymakers to more effectively use such information to consider focused interventions for these vulnerable patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nursing resources, such as staffing ratios and skill mix, vary across hospitals. Better nursing resources have been linked to better patient outcomes but are assumed to increase costs. The value of investments in nursing resources, in terms of clinical benefits relative to costs, is unclear. Objective: To determine whether there are differential clinical outcomes, costs, and value among medical patients at hospitals characterized by better or worse nursing resources. Design: Matched cohort study of patients in 306 acute care hospitals. Patients: A total of 74,045 matched pairs of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries admitted for common medical conditions (25,446 sepsis pairs; 16,332 congestive heart failure pairs; 12,811 pneumonia pairs; 10,598 stroke pairs; 8858 acute myocardial infarction pairs). Patients were also matched on hospital size, technology, and teaching status. Main Measures: Better (n = 76) and worse (n = 230) nursing resourced hospitals were defined by patient-to-nurse ratios, skill mix, proportions of bachelors-degree nurses, and nurse work environments. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, readmission, and resource utilization-based costs. Key Results: Patients in hospitals with better nursing resources had significantly lower 30-day mortality (16.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.0001) and fewer readmissions (32.3% vs 33.6%, p < 0.0001) yet costs were not significantly different ($18,848 vs 18,671, p = 0.133). The greatest outcomes and cost advantage of better nursing resourced hospitals were in patients with sepsis who had lower mortality (25.3% vs 27.6%, p < 0.0001). Overall, patients with the highest risk of mortality on admission experienced the greatest reductions in mortality and readmission from better nursing at no difference in cost. Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries with common medical conditions admitted to hospitals with better nursing resources experienced more favorable outcomes at almost no difference in cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]