Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Surgical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals on a national scale by closely matching on patient procedures and characteristics. BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals have been shown to often have better quality than nonteaching hospitals, but cost and value associated with teaching hospitals remains unclear. METHODS: A study of Medicare patients at 340 teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios ≥ 0.25) and matched patient controls from 2444 nonteaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios < 0.05).We studied 86,751 pairs admitted for general surgery (GS), 214,302 pairs of patients admitted for orthopedic surgery, and 52,025 pairs of patients admitted for vascular surgery. RESULTS: In GS, mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of -0.95%, <0.0001), and overall paired cost difference = $915 (P < 0.0001). For the GS quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (15.94% versus 18.18%, difference = -2.24%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $3773 (P < 0.0001), yielding $1682 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Patterns for vascular surgery outcomes resembled general surgery; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching environments, though costs were higher at teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare patients, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used in general surgery, and to some extent vascular surgery, but this was not apparent in orthopedic surgery.

An empirical comparison of key statistical attributes among potential ICU quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: Good quality indicators should have face validity, relevance to patients, and be able to be measured reliably. Beyond these general requirements, good quality indicators should also have certain statistical properties, including sufficient variability to identify poor performers, relative insensitivity to severity adjustment, and the ability to capture what providers do rather than patients' characteristics. We assessed the performance of candidate indicators of ICU quality on these criteria. Indicators included ICU readmission, mortality, several length of stay outcomes, and the processes of venous-thromboembolism and stress ulcer prophylaxis provision. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One hundred thirty-eight U.S. ICUs from 2001-2008 in the Project IMPACT database. PATIENTS: Two hundred sixty-eight thousand eight hundred twenty-four patients discharged from U.S. ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed indicators' (1) variability across ICU-years; (2) degree of influence by patient vs. ICU and hospital characteristics using the Omega statistic; (3) sensitivity to severity adjustment by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between models including vs. excluding patient variables, and (4) correlation between risk adjusted quality indicators using a Spearman correlation. Large ranges of among-ICU variability were noted for all quality indicators, particularly for prolonged length of stay (4.7-71.3%) and the proportion of patients discharged home (30.6-82.0%), and ICU and hospital characteristics outweighed patient characteristics for stress ulcer prophylaxis (ω, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (ω, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61), and ICU readmissions (ω, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90). Mortality measures were the most sensitive to severity adjustment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve % difference, 29.6%); process measures were the least sensitive (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve % differences: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 3.4%; stress ulcer prophylaxis, 2.1%). None of the 10 indicators was clearly and consistently correlated with a majority of the other nine indicators. CONCLUSIONS: No indicator performed optimally across assessments. Future research should seek to define and operationalize quality in a way that is relevant to both patients and providers.