Surfactant use for premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome in three New York city hospitals: discordance of practice from a community clinician consensus standard.

OBJECTIVE: To assess concordance with a locally developed standard of care for premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) for whom the standard recommends surfactant treatment within 2 h of birth, and to examine the association between clinical, demographic, and hospital characteristics with discordance from the standard. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 773 infants weighing < or =1750 g born in any of the three New York City hospitals between 1999 and 2002. RESULT: 227 of the 773 infants (29%) met criteria for treatment according to the standard. Of these, 37% received surfactant by 2 h. By 4 h, 70% of infants who met the standard received surfactant. White infants were more likely to receive surfactant by 4 h (85%) than African American (61%) or Latino infants (67%). Multivariable logistic regression revealed significant odds ratios predicting discordance from the relaxed criteria (4 h) for African American race (4.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.30 to 13.00), 100 g of birth weight (odds ratio: 1.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 1.34), and hospital of birth. CONCLUSION: Many infants with RDS failed to receive surfactant replacement therapy at 2 and 4 h after birth. African Americans and those born larger were less likely to receive surfactant. If these data can be generalized, there is a large opportunity to reduce infant morbidity from RDS and to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in birth outcomes by increasing the rate and speed with which surfactant is delivered to these infants.

Has evidence changed practice?: appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy after the clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how appropriateness of and indications for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) have changed following the publication of several large international randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to rationalize use of CEA. METHODS: The New York Carotid Artery Surgery Study (NYCAS) is a population-based cohort study of all CEAs performed on elderly patients from January 1998 through June 1999 in New York State. Detailed clinical data were abstracted from medical charts to assess indications for and appropriateness of surgery using a list of 1,557 indications for CEA developed by national experts using RAND appropriateness methods. Deaths and strokes within 30 days of surgery were ascertained and confirmed by two physicians. RESULTS: Among the 9,588 patients, the mean age was 74.6 years and 93.6% had 70 to 99% carotid stenosis. Nearly three-quarters of patients (72.3%) underwent CEA for asymptomatic stenosis, 18.6% for TIA, and 9.1% for stroke. Overall, 87.1% of operations were done for appropriate reasons, 4.3% for uncertain reasons, and 8.6% for inappropriate reasons (vs 32% inappropriate before the RCTs, p < 0.0001). Among procedures judged inappropriate, the most common reasons were high comorbidity in asymptomatic patients (62.2%), operating after a major stroke (14.2%), or for minimal stenosis (10.5%). Among asymptomatic patients, those with high comorbidity had over twice the risk of death or stroke compared to those without high comorbidity (7.13% vs 2.69%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Since publication of the randomized controlled trials, there has been a reduction in the proportion of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for inappropriate reasons. The shift toward many asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA is concerning because the net benefit from surgery for these patients is low and is reduced further for patients with high comorbidity.

Association of surgical specialty and processes of care with patient outcomes for carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Because there is considerable variation in practice patterns and outcomes for carotid endarterectomy (CE), there is a need to study the processes of care that are associated with adverse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of processes of care and surgical specialty on adverse outcomes for CE. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study based on a voluntary CE registry containing 3644 patients undergoing CE between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 1999, in New York hospitals was used in the study. A multivariable statistical model was used to identify significant independent patient risk factors and to examine the association of processes of care and surgical specialty with outcomes after adjustment for differences in patient risk factors. RESULTS: The overall adverse outcome (in-hospital death or stroke) rate was 1.84%. After adjustment for differences in 7 patient risk factors that were significantly related to adverse outcomes, the use of >/=1 specific processes of care (eversion endarterectomy, protamine, or shunts) was found to be associated with lower odds of an adverse outcome relative to patients undergoing CE without the processes (OR=0.42, P=0.006). Similarly, patients undergoing surgery performed by vascular surgeons had lower odds of experiencing an adverse outcome (OR=0.36, P=0.009). Processes of care and surgical specialty were highly correlated with one another. CONCLUSIONS: Processes of care and surgical specialty are significant interrelated determinants of adverse outcome for CE.

Improving quality, minimizing error: making it happen.

Medical errors and the quality problems to which they lead harm millions of Americans each year. If we are to reduce errors and improve quality substantially, we must create systems and care processes that anticipate inevitable human errors and either prevent them or compensate for them before they cause harm. Formidable barriers now stand in the way of progress. Success will require a multifaceted strategy, including public education, government investment and regulation, payment system restructuring, and leadership from within the delivery system.

Improving the quality of health care: who will lead?

National interest in the quality of American health care increased dramatically in 1999. The press, the Institute of Medicine, legislators, physicians, and hospitals joined in a vigorous policy discussion. But a similar debate occurred in 1988, following reports from four public agencies that detailed their concerns about health care quality. In the intervening decade, research has not documented much improvement. In this paper we outline the quality problems in U.S. health care, review some of their most prominent causes, consider the biggest obstacles to bringing about major improvement, and discuss the vital role of leadership in achieving this goal.

Windows of opportunity to improve diabetes care when patients with diabetes are hospitalized for other conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The overwhelming majority of hospitalizations for patients with diabetes occur for treatment of comorbid conditions. This study assessed broad-based interventions to improve diabetes care for patients hospitalized with cardiac conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A pre-post quasi-experimental study design was used to evaluate the implementation of two quality improvement interventions: 1) revision of the hospital's capillary blood glucose monitoring form into a color-coded process control chart and 2) a clinical path for type 2 diabetes as a secondary diagnosis. Interventions were implemented on the medical and surgical cardiac care units (not including the intensive care units on these services) of a tertiary academic medical center. A chart abstraction sample included 328 subjects with no exposure to the interventions and 336 subjects hospitalized after both interventions were implemented. Telephone surveys were conducted after discharge on 446 patients. RESULTS: The frequency of patients with severe hyperglycemia (at least one glucose level >400 mg/dl) and prolonged hyperglycemia (at least three consecutive glucose levels >250 mg/dl) decreased from 12 and 17% preintervention to 6.6 and 10% postintervention (P = 0.017 and P = 0.013, respectively). We found that 9% of the patients preintervention and 5% of the patients postintervention (P = 0.05) had nosocomial infections. Patient-reported receipt of self-care instruction varied from 44 to 69% on nine survey items preintervention. Postintervention linear regression slopes for receipt of self-care instruction were all greater than preintervention slopes, but the differences did not achieve statistical significance. We found that 40% of the patients had important diabetes knowledge deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Our broad-based interventions were associated with a decreased frequency of prolonged and severe hyperglycemia and a decreased frequency of nosocomial infections. We also identified opportunities to improve diabetes self-care instruction before discharge and to address important knowledge deficits of patients.

The quality of early-stage breast cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether recent practice has improved, the authors created detailed, evidence-based guidelines and assessed the quality of early-stage breast cancer care at four hospitals in the metropolitan New York area. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Adjuvant treatments for early-stage breast cancer have been shown to improve health and longevity. However, reports from the 1980s showed marked underuse of these therapies. METHODS: All 723 women with early-stage breast cancer who had a definitive surgical procedure at four participating hospitals in the Mount Sinai-NYU Health System between April 1994 and August 1996 were included. Inpatient and outpatient records were abstracted. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of women underwent breast-conserving surgery, of whom 81% received radiation therapy. Hospital-specific radiation therapy rates varied from 69% to 87%. Seventy-eight percent of women with stage 1B or greater cancer received systemic treatment, with hospital-specific rates varying from 71% to 86%. Between 18% and 33% of women who could have benefited from local or systemic adjuvant treatments did not receive them. The risk of not getting a beneficial adjuvant treatment varied more than twofold by the hospital where the breast cancer surgery was performed. CONCLUSIONS: The hospital where breast cancer surgery is performed is associated with the likelihood that women receive effective local and systemic adjuvant treatments. Surgeons and members of hospital quality improvement programs should encourage multidisciplinary approaches to breast cancer care.

Determining the quality of breast cancer care: do tumor registries measure up?

BACKGROUND: Hospital tumor registries, which provide data that inform health services research and cancer control policies, may be a source of information about quality of cancer care. However, the accuracy of data from such registries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of tumor registry data by comparing it with data collected from numerous sources for a breast cancer quality improvement project. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three teaching hospitals with tumor registries in the New York metropolitan area that had participated in the quality improvement project. PATIENTS: All women with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer (stage I or stage II) who were surgically treated at the study hospitals between 1 November 1994 and 31 August 1996. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and data from the quality improvement project were used as the gold standard. RESULTS: The tumor registries and the quality improvement project had similar information on tumor stage and surgery type. Sensitivity ranged from 0.91 to 0.96, and specificity ranged from 0.93 to 0.97. When both sources were used to calculate quality measures, the overall rate of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery was 80% in the quality improvement project and 48% in the tumor registries (sensitivity, 0.58; specificity, 0.94). For receipt of adjuvant systemic treatment, the rate was 78% in the quality improvement project and 22% in the tumor registries (sensitivity, 0.27; specificity, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Data from tumor registries provide accurate measures for hospital-based surgical treatments but not for outpatient treatments. Unverified tumor registry data should not be used to measure quality of care.

What are Medicare managed care plans doing to measure and improve quality of care?

To explore managed care plans' efforts to assess and improve quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries, the authors surveyed managed care plans with risk contracts for Medicare beneficiaries in 20 large metropolitan areas in January 1998. The survey inquired about: (1) the health plans' efforts to assess and improve quality of care for specific underuse, overuse, and misuse problems; (2) how the health plans assessed functional status of enrollees, and (3) the quality improvement program they believed had the greatest impact on the health of enrollees. The managed care plans reported a heterogeneous mix of quality improvement activities ranging from poorly developed to very sophisticated. The vast majority of the more sophisticated programs addressed problems with underuse of services rather than overuse or misuse.

The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality.

OBJECTIVE: To identify issues related to the quality of health care in the United States, including its measurement, assessment, and improvement, requiring action by health care professionals or other constituencies in the public or private sectors. PARTICIPANTS: The National Roundtable on Health Care Quality, convened by the Institute of Medicine, a component of the National Academy of Sciences, comprised 20 representatives of the private and public sectors, practicing medicine and nursing, representing academia, business, consumer advocacy, and the health media, and including the heads of federal health programs. The roundtable met 6 times between February 1996 and January 1998. It explored ongoing, rapid changes in health care and the implications of these changes for the quality of health and health care in the United States. EVIDENCE: Roundtable members held discussions with a wide variety of experts, convened conferences, commissioned papers, and drew on their individual professional experience. CONSENSUS PROCESS: At the end of its deliberations, roundtable members reached consensus on the conclusions described in this article by a series of discussions at committee meetings and reviews of successive draft documents, the first of which was created by the listed authors and the Institute of Medicine project director. The drafts were revised following these discussions, and the final document was approved according to the formal report review procedures of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of health care can be precisely defined and measured with a degree of scientific accuracy comparable with that of most measures used in clinical medicine. Serious and widespread quality problems exist throughout American medicine. These problems, which may be classified as underuse, overuse, or misuse, occur in small and large communities alike, in all parts of the country, and with approximately equal frequency in managed care and fee-for-service systems of care. Very large numbers of Americans are harmed as a direct result. Quality of care is the problem, not managed care. Current efforts to improve will not succeed unless we undertake a major, systematic effort to overhaul how we deliver health care services, educate and train clinicians, and assess and improve quality.

The medical consultant's role in caring for patients with hip fracture.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are an important cause of death and functional dependence in the United States. PURPOSE: To review the evidence for clinical decisions that medical consultants make for patients with hip fracture and to develop recommendations for care. DATA SOURCES: Published reports of clinical studies were found by searching MEDLINE and selected bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if data were presented on clinical interventions to improve care of conditions typically encountered by medical consultants in the care of patients with hip fracture. Such conditions include timing of surgery, infection prophylaxis, thromboembolic prophylaxis, postoperative nutritional management, urinary tract management, prevention and management of delirium, application and timing of rehabilitation services, and prevention of subsequent falls. Meta-analyses; randomized, controlled trials; or other controlled studies were included if possible. If no such trials were identified, the best evidence from studies with other designs was included. DATA EXTRACTION: Interventions were selected on the basis of their efficacy or potential efficacy in improving functional outcome. Trials with positive and negative results were compared for differences in intervention and strength of study methods. DATA SYNTHESIS: Strong evidence supports medical recommendations for decisions about timing and duration of prophylactic antibiotics, selection of thromboembolic prophylaxis, urinary tract and nutritional management, and rehabilitative services. Many case series support early surgical repair, although patients who would benefit from delay and further medical work-up have not been well identified. Evidence for decisions about assessment of subsequent risk for fall and risk for and management of delirium is based largely on data from patients without hip fracture but is probably applicable. Future research should target optimal duration of thromboembolic prophylaxis, cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with that of other thromboembolic prophylactic regimens, management of delirium, rehabilitative services, and efficacy of assessment of risk for later falls. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that evidence-based medical care can improve hip fracture outcomes. The medical consultant has a key role in providing this care and managing the preoperative conditions and postoperative complications that may affect optimal functional recovery.

Engaging clinicians in a quality improvement strategy for early-stage breast cancer treatment.

Physicians are skeptical of quality improvement and obtaining their enthusiastic participation continues to be a challenge. We designed and initiated a clinician-driven quality improvement project to improve the provision of efficacious breast cancer treatments among women presenting to an academic medical center for their initial treatment of early-stage breast cancer. All 156 identified physicians agreed to participate in the project and provided access to their office records or specific medical information.

Assessing the predictive validity of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method criteria for performing carotid endarterectomy.

We assessed the predictive validity of an expert panel's ratings of the appropriateness of carotid endarterectomy by comparing ratings to the results of subsequent randomized clinical trials. We found the trials confirmed the ratings for 44 indications (covering almost 30% of operations performed in 1981) and refuted the ratings for none.

Is health care ready for Six Sigma quality?

Serious, widespread problems exist in the quality of U.S. health care: too many patients are exposed to the risks of unnecessary services; opportunities to use effective care are missed; and preventable errors lead to injuries. Advanced practitioners of industrial quality management, like Motorola and General Electric, have committed themselves to reducing the frequency of defects in their business processes to fewer than 3.4 per million, a strategy known as Six Sigma Quality. In health care, quality problems frequently occur at rates of 20 to 50 percent, or 200,000 to 500,000 per million. In order to approach Six Sigma levels of quality, the health care sector must address the underlying causes of error and make important changes: adopting new educational models; devising strategies to increase consumer awareness; and encouraging public and private investment in quality improvement.

Assessment of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performance in New York. Is there a bias against taking high-risk patients?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether performing coronary artery bypass surgery on high-risk patients adversely affects the risk-adjusted mortality rates for patients of surgeons and hospitals in New York State compared with the impact of performing surgery on more routine patients. METHODS: Risk-adjusted mortality-rates were calculated for 31 hospitals and 87 surgeons for high-risk (a predicted mortality rate of at least 7.5%) and low-risk patients during the time period 1990 to 1992. RESULTS: The risk-adjusted mortality for all high-risk patients was lower (2.94%) than the risk-adjusted mortality for other patients (3.02%). Fifteen of the 31 hospitals had a lower risk-adjusted mortality for all patients than they did for low-risk patients only, and no differences in either direction were statistically significant. Forty-one of 87 surgeons (47%) had risk-adjusted mortality for all patients that was at least as low as the risk-adjusted mortality for low-risk patients. In general, hospitals and surgeons with the lowest risk-adjusted mortality for all cases also had the lowest risk-adjusted mortality for high-risk cases. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that there is no systematic bias against operating on high-risk coronary artery bypass graft patients in the risk-adjusted performance system in New York.