Search

Background: Patients and payers wish to identify hospitals with good surgical oncology outcomes. Our objective was to determine whether differences in outcomes explained by hospital structural characteristics are mitigated by differences in patient severity., Methods: Using hospital administrative and cancer registry records in Pennsylvania, we identified 24,618 adults hospitalized for cancer-related operations. Colorectal, prostate, endometrial, ovarian, head and neck, lung, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers were studied. Outcome measures were 30-day mortality and failure to rescue (FTR) (30-day mortality preceded by a complication). After severity of illness adjustment, we estimated logistic regression models to predict the likelihood of both outcomes. In addition to American Hospital Association survey data, we externally verified hospitals with National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer center or Commission on Cancer (COC) cancer program status., Results: Patients in hospitals with NCI cancer centers were significantly younger and less acutely ill on admission (P < .001). Patients in high volume hospitals were younger, had lower admission acuity, yet had more advanced cancer (P < .001). Unadjusted 30-day mortality rates were lower in NCI-designated hospitals (3.76% vs 2.17%;P = .01). Risk-adjusted FTR rates were significantly lower in NCI-designated hospitals (4.86% vs 3.51%;P = .03). NCI center designation was a significant predictor of 30-day mortality when considering patient and hospital characteristics (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97;P = .04). We did not find significant outcomes effects based on COC cancer program approval., Conclusion: Patient severity of illness varies significantly across hospitals, which may explain the outcome differences observed. Severity adjustment is crucial to understanding outcome differences. Outcomes were better than predicted for NCI-designated hospitals., (Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the effect of nursing practice environments on outcomes of hospitalized cancer patients undergoing surgery., Data Sources: Secondary analysis of cancer registry, inpatient claims, administrative and nurse survey data collected in Pennsylvania for 1998-1999., Study Design: Nurse staffing (patient to nurse ratio), educational preparation (proportion of nurses holding at least a bachelor's degree), and the practice environment (Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index) were calculated from a survey of nurses and aggregated to the hospital level. Logistic regression models predicted the odds of 30-day mortality, complications, and failure to rescue (death following a complication)., Principal Findings: Unadjusted death, complication, and failure to rescue rates were 3.4, 35.7, and 9.3 percent, respectively. Nurse staffing and educational preparation of registered nurses were significantly associated with patient outcomes. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, patients in hospitals with poor nurse practice environments had significantly increased odds of death (odds ratio, 1.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.07-1.76) and of failure to rescue (odds ratio, 1.48; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.07-2.03). Receipt of care in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers significantly decreased the odds of death, which can be explained partly by better nurse practice environments., Conclusions: This study is one of the first to examine the predictive validity of the National Quality Forum's endorsed measure of the nurse practice environment. Improvements in the quality of nurse practice environments could reduce adverse outcomes for hospitalized surgical oncology patients.

Background: While improvements in nursing practice environments are considered essential to address the nursing shortage, relatively little is known about the nursing practice environments in most hospitals., Objectives: The objectives of this study are to describe variations in nursing practice environments across hospitals and to examine their associations to hospital bed size, community size, teaching intensity, and nurse staffing levels., Methods: The research design was cross-sectional analyses of nurse survey and administrative data for 156 Pennsylvania hospitals from 1999. For comparative reference, nurse survey data from earlier years from two small samples of nursing magnet hospitals were analyzed. The nursing practice environment was measured by the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI)., Results: Nursing practice environments varied greatly among the hospitals studied. The nursing practice environments of the small samples of magnet hospitals were superior to those of the Pennsylvania sample. About 17% of the hospitals in the Pennsylvania sample had favorable practice environments. Pennsylvania hospitals with better practice environments had higher RN-to-bed ratios. Practice environment differences were not associated with hospital bed size or community size. Hospitals with a modest teaching level had less favorable environments., Discussion: Considerable variation exists in the quality of hospital nursing practice environments. Five out of six hospitals are targets for improvement. Favorable nursing practice environments can be achieved in a wide variety of hospital settings.