Search

Background: There are increasing calls for regionalization of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care in the United States to hospitals with the capacity to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether regionalization will improve outcomes depends in part on the magnitude of existing differences in outcomes between PCI and non-PCI hospitals within the same health care region., Methods: A 100% sample of claims from Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006, was used to calculate hospital-level, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs). The RSMRs between PCI and local non-PCI hospitals were compared within local health care regions defined by hospital referral regions (HRRs)., Results: A total of 523 119 AMI patients was admitted to 1382 PCI hospitals, and 194 909 AMI patients were admitted to 2491 non-PCI hospitals in 295 HRRs with at least 1 PCI and 1 non-PCI hospital. Although PCI hospitals had lower RSMRs than non-PCI hospitals (mean, 16.1% vs 16.9%; P < .001), considerable overlap was seen in RSMRs between non-PCI and PCI hospitals within the same HRR. In 80 HRRs, the RSMRs at the best-performing PCI hospital were lower than those at local non-PCI hospitals by 3% or more. Among the remaining HRRs, the RSMRs at the best-performing PCI hospital were lower by 1.5% to 3.0% in 104 HRRs and by greater than 0 to 1.5% in 74 HRRs. In 37 HRRs, the RSMRs at the best-performing PCI hospital were no better or were higher than at local non-PCI hospitals., Conclusions: The magnitude of benefit from comprehensively regionalizing AMI care to PCI hospitals appears to vary greatly across HRRs. These findings support a tailored regionalization policy that targets areas with the greatest outcome differences between PCI and local non-PCI hospitals.

Background: Readmission after heart failure (HF) hospitalization is an increasing focus for physicians and policy makers, but statistical models are needed to assess patient risk and to compare hospital performance. We performed a systematic review to describe models designed to compare hospital rates of readmission or to predict patients' risk of readmission, as well as to identify studies evaluating patient characteristics associated with hospital readmission, all among patients admitted for HF., Methods: We identified relevant studies published between January 1, 1950, and November 19, 2007, by searching MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, and all 4 Ovid Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. Eligible English-language publications reported on readmission after HF hospitalization among adult patients. We excluded experimental studies and publications without original data or quantitative outcomes., Results: From 941 potentially relevant articles, 117 met inclusion criteria: none contained models to compare readmission rates among hospitals, 5 (4.3%) presented models to predict patients' risk of readmission, and 112 (95.7%) examined patient characteristics associated with readmission. Studies varied in case identification, used multiple types of data sources, found few patient characteristics consistently associated with readmission, and examined differing outcomes, often either readmission alone or a combined outcome of readmission or death, measured across varying periods (from 14 days to 4 years). Two articles reported model discriminations of patient readmission risk, both of which were modest (C statistic, 0.60 for both)., Conclusions: Our systematic review identified no model designed to compare hospital rates of readmission, while models designed to predict patients' readmission risk used heterogeneous approaches and found substantial inconsistencies regarding which patient characteristics were predictive. Clinically, patient risk stratification is challenging. From a policy perspective, a validated risk-standardized statistical model to accurately profile hospitals using readmission rates is unavailable in the published English-language literature to date.