From adversary to partner: have quality improvement organizations made the transition?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the perceived impact of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) on quality of care for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, in the context of new efforts to work more collaboratively with hospitals in the pursuit of quality improvement. DATA SOURCE: Primary data collected from a national random sample of 105 hospital quality management directors interviewed between January and July 2002. STUDY DESIGN: We interviewed quality management directors concerning their interactions with the QIO interventions, the helpfulness of QIO interventions and the degree to which they helped or hindered their hospital quality efforts, and their recommendations for improving QIO effectiveness. PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: More than 90% of hospitals reported that their QIO had initiated specific interventions, the most common being the provision of educational materials, benchmark data, and hospital performance data. Many respondents (60%) rated most QIO interventions as helpful or very helpful, although only one-quarter of respondents believed quality of care would have been worse without the QIO interventions. To increase QIO efficacy, respondents recommended that QIOs appeal more directly to senior administration, target physicians (not just hospital employees), and enhance the perceived validity and timeliness of data used in quality indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the QIOs have overcome, to some degree, the previously adversarial and punitive roles of Peer Review Organizations with hospitals. The generally positive view among most hospital quality improvement directors concerning the QIO interventions suggests that QIOs are potentially poised to take a leading role in promoting quality of care. However, the full potential of QIOs will likely not be realized until QIOs are able to engender greater engagement from senior hospital administration and physicians.

Long-term mortality in cerebrovascular disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, yet data are limited about the temporal pattern of mortality among patients with cerebrovascular disease. The objectives of this study were to identify predictors of 6-month mortality and to evaluate 5-year mortality in patients with cerebrovascular disease. METHODS: Our population included fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged > or =65 years who were discharged with an acute ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or carotid stenosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 433 to 436) from Connecticut acute care hospitals in 1995. This cohort was followed through 2000 by means of part A Medicare claims and Social Security Administration mortality data. RESULTS: Among 5123 patients, 4781 survived their hospitalization and were followed for an average of 3.4 years; 670 (14.0%) died within 6 months of discharge, and 2517 (52.6%) died within 5 years. Predictors of 6-month mortality included older age, male sex, increasing comorbidity, discharge not to home, and prior admission within a year of the index hospitalization. The annual mortality rates for year 1 after discharge differed depending on the discharge diagnosis of the index hospitalization: carotid stenosis, 10.6%; TIA, 14.8%; and acute ischemic stroke, 26.4%. The 5-year cumulative mortality rates were as follows: carotid stenosis, 38.3%; TIA, 49.6%; and acute ischemic stroke, 60.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality after acute ischemic stroke, TIA, and carotid stenosis is substantial. Rates and patterns of mortality differ according to patients' discharge diagnoses.

Burden of illness score for elderly persons: risk adjustment incorporating the cumulative impact of diseases, physiologic abnormalities, and functional impairments.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a new risk adjustment index-the Burden of Illness Score for Elderly Persons (BISEP)-which integrates multiple domains, including diseases, physiologic abnormalities, and functional impairments. RESEARCH DESIGN SUBJECTS: The index was developed in a prospective cohort of 525 patients aged > or = 70 years from the medicine service of a university hospital. The index was validated in a cohort of 1246 patients aged > or = 65 years from 27 hospitals. The outcome was 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Five risk factors were selected from diagnosis, laboratory, and functional status axes: high-risk diagnoses, albumin < or = 3.5 mg/dL, creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, dementia, and walking impairment. The BISEP score (range 0-7) created four groups of increasing risk: group I (score 0-1), group II (2), group III (3), and group IV (> or = 4). In the development cohort, where overall mortality was 154/525 (29%), 1-year mortality rates increased significantly across each risk group, from 8% to 24%, 51%, and 74%, in groups I to IV respectively (chi(2) trend, = 0.001)--an overall 17-fold increased risk by hazard ratio. The c-statistic for the final model was 0.83. Corresponding rates in the validation cohort, where overall mortality was 488/1246 (39%), were 5%, 17%, 33%, and 61% in groups I to IV, respectively (chi(2) trend, = 0.001)-an overall 18-fold increased risk by hazard ratio. The c-statistic for the final model was 0.77. In each cohort, sequential addition of variables from different sources (eg, administrative, laboratory, and chart) substantially improved model fit and predictive accuracy. BISEP had significantly superior mortality prediction compared with five widely used measures. CONCLUSIONS: BISEP provides a useful new risk adjustment system for hospitalized older persons. Although index performance using different data sources has been evaluated, the full BISEP model, incorporating disease, laboratory, and functional impairment information, demonstrates the best performance.