Hospital Rating Organizations' Quality and Patient Safety Scores: Analysis of Result Discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, multiple organizations rate hospitals based on quality and patient safety data, but few studies have analyzed and compared the rating results. OBJECTIVE: Compare the results of different US hospital-rating organizations. DESIGN: Observational data analysis of US acute care hospital ratings. PARTICIPANTS: Four rating organizations: Hospital Compare® (HC), Healthgrades® (HG), The Leapfrog Group® (Leapfrog), and US News and World Report® (USN). MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed the level of concordance (similar ranking), discordance (difference of 1 or more rankings), and severe discordance (difference of two or more rankings), as well as differences and correlations between the scores. KEY RESULTS: From Feb 1 to Oct 3, 2023, we analyzed data from 2,384 hospitals. In Leapfrog, there were 688 hospitals (29%) with Grade A, 652 (27.3%) with B, 885 (37.1%) with C, 153 (6.4%) with D, and 6 (0.3%) with F. For HC, 333 hospitals (14%) had five stars, 676 (28.4%) four, 695 (29.2%) three, 502 (21.4%) two, and 171 (7.2%) one-star. In ratings between HC and Leapfrog, discordance was 70%, and severe discordance was 25.1%. USN ranked 469 hospitals (19.7%). Within the USN-ranked hospital group, there was a 62% discordance and 19.8% severe discordance between HC and Leapfrog. The analysis of orthopedic procedures from HG and USN showed discordance ranging from 48 to 61.2%. CONCLUSION: The rating organizations' reported metrics were highly discordant. A hospital's ranking by one organization frequently did not correspond to a similar ranking by another. The methodology and included timeline and patient population can help explain the differences. However, the discordant ratings may confuse patients and customers.

ED Patient Experience: Does Day of the Week or Time of the Day Matter?

The effect of the arrival day of the week, arrival time of the day, or discharge time of the day on emergency department (ED) patient experience (PE) scores has not been well studied. We performed a retrospective analysis of ED patients between July 1st, 2018 through March 31st, 2021. We recorded demographics, PE scores, arrival day, arrival and discharge times, and total ED and perceived ED times. We performed univariate and multivariable analyses. We sent 49,849 surveys and received back 2423 that we included in our study. The responding patients' median age was 52, with a majority of female gender (62%) and white race (57%). The average arrival time was 1:40 PM, and the average discharge time 2:38 PM. The average total ED time was 261 minutes, while the average perceived ED time was 540 minutes. We found a statistical association between worse PE scores and longer actual ED time but not longer perceived time. A later arrival time was significantly associated with worse PE scores on 4 out of 6 domains of the PE questionnaire. The discharge time and the day of the week were not significantly associated with PE scores. Conclusion: Actual longer ED time was significantly associated with worse PE scores, but not perceived time. Later arrival time was associated with worse PE scores, but not later discharge time. The arrival day of the week was not statistically associated with differences in PE. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Measures of Emergency Department Crowding, a Systematic Review. How to Make Sense of a Long List.

Emergency department (ED) crowding, a common and serious phenomenon in many countries, lacks standardized definition and measurement methods. This systematic review critically analyzes the most commonly studied ED crowding measures. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed/Medline Database for all studies published in English from January 1st, 1990, until December 1st, 2020. We used the National Institute of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool to grade the included studies. The initial search yielded 2293 titles and abstracts, of whom we thoroughly reviewed 109 studies, then, after adding seven additional, included 90 in the final analysis. We excluded simple surveys, reviews, opinions, case reports, and letters to the editors. We included relevant papers published in English from 1990 to 2020. We did not grade any study as poor and graded 18 as fair and 72 as good. Most studies were conducted in the USA. The most studied crowding measures were the ED occupancy, the ED length of stay, and the ED volume. The most heterogeneous crowding measures were the boarding time and number of boarders. Except for the National ED Overcrowding Scale (NEDOCS) and the Emergency Department Work Index (EDWIN) scores, the studied measures are easy to calculate and communicate. Quality of care was the most studied outcome. The EDWIN and NEDOCS had no studies with the outcome mortality. The ED length of stay had no studies with the outcome perception of care. ED crowding was often associated with worse outcomes: higher mortality in 45% of the studies, worse quality of care in 75%, and a worse perception of care in 100%. The ED occupancy, ED volume, and ED length of stay are easy to measure, calculate and communicate, are homogenous in their definition, and were the most studied measures.