Comparing Public Quality Ratings for Accredited and Nonaccredited Nursing Homes.

OBJECTIVES: Compare quality ratings of accredited and nonaccredited nursing homes using the publicly available Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Nursing Home Compare data set. METHODS: This cross-sectional study compared the performance of 711 Joint Commission-accredited (TJC-accredited) nursing homes (81 of which also had Post-Acute Care Certification) to 14,926 non-Joint Commission-accredited (non-TJC-accredited) facilities using the Nursing Home Compare data set (as downloaded on April 2015). Measures included the overall Five-Star Quality Rating and its 4 components (health inspection, quality measures, staffing, and RN staffing), the 18 Nursing Home Compare quality measures (5 short-stay measures, 13 long-stay measures), as well as inspection deficiencies, fines, and payment denials. t tests were used to assess differences in rates for TJC-accredited nursing homes versus non-TJC-accredited nursing homes for quality measures, ratings, and fine amounts. Analysis of variance models were used to determine differences in rates using Joint Commission accreditation status, nursing home size based on number of beds, and ownership type. An additional model with an interaction term using Joint Commission accreditation status and Joint Commission Post-Acute Care Certification status was used to determine differences in rates for Post-Acute Care Certified nursing homes. Binary variables (eg, deficiency type, fines, and payment denials) were evaluated using a logistic regression model with the same covariates. RESULTS: After controlling for the influences of facility size and ownership type, TJC-accredited nursing homes had significantly higher star ratings than non-TJC-accredited nursing homes on each of the star rating component subscales (P < .05) (but not on the overall star rating), and TJC-accredited nursing homes with Post-Acute Care Certification performed statistically better on the overall star rating, as well as 3 of the 4 subscales (P < .05). TJC-accredited nursing homes had statistically fewer deficiencies than non-TJC-accredited nursing homes (P < .001), were less likely to have immediate jeopardy or widespread deficiencies (P < .001), and had fewer payment denials (P < .001) and lower fines (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Despite recent changes made to the CMS NHC star-rating methodology, results confirm previous findings that demonstrate a consistent pattern of superior performance among nursing homes accredited by The Joint Commission when compared to non-TJC-accredited facilities across a broad range of indicators in the Nursing Home Compare data set. It is important to note, however, that a cross-sectional study cannot determine causation, so it is unclear if accreditation assists nursing homes in achieving better care, or if higher-performing nursing homes are more likely to pursue accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: Accreditation status remains a significant predictor of nursing home quality across multiple dimensions, independent of facility size and ownership type.

Does health care role and experience influence perception of safety culture related to preventing infections?

Growing evidence reveals the importance of improving safety culture in efforts to eliminate health care-associated infections. This multisite, cross-sectional survey examined the association between professional role and health care experience on infection prevention safety culture at 5 hospitals. The findings suggest that frontline health care technicians are less directly engaged in improvement efforts and safety education than other staff and that infection prevention safety culture varies more by hospital than by staff position and experience.

Case volume and hospital compliance with evidence-based processes of care.

BACKGROUND: For many complex cardiovascular procedures the well-established link between volume and outcome has rested on the underlying assumption that experience leads to more reliable implementation of the processes of care which have been associated with better clinical outcomes. This study tested that assumption by examining the relationship between cardiovascular case volumes and the implementation of twelve basic evidence-based processes of cardiovascular care. METHOD AND RESULTS: Observational analysis of over 3000 US hospitals submitting cardiovascular performance indicator data to The Joint Commission on during 2005. Hospitals were grouped together based upon their annual case volumes and indicator rates were calculated for twelve standardized indicators of evidence-based processes of cardiovascular care (eight of which assessed evidenced-based processes for patients with acute myocardial infarction and four of which evaluated evidenced-based processes for heart failure patients). As case volume increased so did indicator rates, up to a statistical cut-point that was unique to each indicator (ranging from 12 to 287 annual cases). t-Test analyses and generalized linear mixed effects logistic regression were used to compare the performance of hospitals with case volumes above or below the statistical cut-point. Hospitals with case volumes that were above the cut-point had indicator rates that were, on an average, 10 percentage points higher than hospitals with case volumes below the cut-point (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Hospitals treating fewer cardiovascular cases were significantly less likely to apply evidence-based processes of care than hospitals with larger case volumes, but only up to a statistically identifiable cut-point unique to each indicator.

Performance of top-ranked heart care hospitals on evidence-based process measures.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing availability of evidence-based clinical performance measure data that compares the performances of US hospitals, the general public continues to rely on more popular resources such as the US News & World Report annual publication of "America's Best Hospitals" for information on hospital quality. This study evaluated how well hospitals ranked on the US News & World Report list of top heart and heart surgery hospitals performed on acute myocardial infarction and heart failure measures derived from American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association clinical treatment guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study identified 774 hospitals, including 41 of the US News & World Report top 50 heart and heart surgery hospitals. To compare hospitals, 10 rate-based performance measures (6 addressing processes of acute myocardial infarction care and 4 addressing heart failure care), were aggregated into a cardiovascular composite measure. As a group, the US News & World Report hospitals performed statistically better than their peers (mean, 86% versus 83%; P < 0.05). Individually, however, only 23 of the US News & World Report hospitals achieved statistically better-than-average performance compared with the population average, whereas 9 performed significantly worse (P < 0.05). One hundred sixty-seven hospitals in this study routinely implemented evidenced-based heart care > or = 90% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: A number of the US News & World Report top hospitals fell short in regularly applying evidenced-based care for their heart patients. At the same time, many lesser known hospitals routinely provided cardiovascular care that was consistent with nationally established guidelines.

Quality of care in U.S. hospitals as reflected by standardized measures, 2002-2004.

BACKGROUND: In July 2002, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations implemented standardized performance measures that were designed to track the performance of accredited hospitals and encourage improvement in the quality of health care. METHODS: We examined hospitals' performance on 18 standardized indicators of the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. One measure assessed a clinical outcome (death in the hospital after acute myocardial infarction), and the other 17 measures assessed processes of care. Data were collected over a two-year period in more than 3000 accredited hospitals. All participating hospitals received quarterly feedback in the form of comparative reports throughout the study. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis revealed a significant improvement (P<0.01) in the performance of U.S. hospitals on 15 of 18 measures, and no measure showed a significant deterioration. The magnitude of improvement ranged from 3 percent to 33 percent during the eight quarters studied. For 16 of the 17 process-of-care measures, hospitals with a low level of performance at baseline had greater improvements over the subsequent two years than hospitals with a high level of performance at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Over a two-year period, we observed consistent improvement in measures reflecting the process of care for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Both quantitative and qualitative research are needed to explore the reasons for these improvements.