Relationship between Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey and outcomes in trauma

Children's hospital quality ratings: where are we and can we do better?

Hospital quality ratings are intended to guide patients and payers to the highest quality hospitals. Their success in achieving this goal has been limited by inconsistencies between ratings and questionable data collection methods. Despite these shortcomings, their popularity and their importance are increasing. There is little published on how these quality rankings pertain to children's hospitals. The majority of what is available analyzes the US News and World Report's Best Children's Hospitals Survey and the Leapfrog Group's Pediatric Care survey. We provide a narrative review of the literature and our interpretation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these tools, including a letter grade comparison. Based on our analysis, we provide potential improvements to these rating systems that may benefit both the patient, payer, and the hospital.

Is it time to measure complications from the National Trauma Data Bank? A longitudinal analysis of recent reporting trends

BACKGROUND

Payers have approached select complications as never events, yet there is rationale that achieving a zero incidence of these events is impractical. Prior 2005 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) analysis showed high rates (37%) of centers reporting no complications data making national estimates for determining standardized complication rates difficult to ascertain.

METHODS

The 2008-2012 NTDB National Sample Program nationally weighted files were used to calculate yearly national estimates. Rates were compared in all centers and those reporting complications data. Hospital characteristics were compared using Student t test. In 2011, an other complication category was introduced; overall rates were calculated with and without this category. Yearly estimates were reported for patients receiving care within centers reporting complications data.

RESULTS

From 2008-2012 NTDB, there were raw data on 3,657,884 patients. A total of 594,894 patients (16.3%) experienced one or more complications (82.7% one complication; 17.3% two or more complications). Excluding the other complication category, the overall weighted rate was 8.4% to 9.2%. Pneumonia was the most common complication (2.7-3.0%), occurring at twice the 2005 rate. The number of centers reporting no complications data dropped to 8.1% in 2011 (2008, 14.5%; 2009, 18.2%; 2010, 15.9%; 2012, 8.9%). By 2012, nearly all level I centers reported complications, whereas 46.4% of level IVs reported none (I 0.5%, II 2.7%, III 8.5%, p = 0.04). Data were reported the least frequently in nonteaching hospitals (15.8%, p = 0.007), those in the South (19.6%, p = 0.007), and those with less than 200 beds (23.6%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Overall rates of complications from 2008 to 2012 were nearly twofold higher than 2005 data. Reporting has increased, and NTDB may provide a valuable platform for establishing rational and achievable measures for specific complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and epidemiological, level IV.

Dissecting Leapfrog: How Well Do Leapfrog Safe Practices Scores Correlate With Hospital Compare Ratings and Penalties, and How Much Do They Matter?

BACKGROUND

Voluntary Leapfrog Safe Practices Score (SPS) measures were among the first public reports of hospital performance. Recently, Medicare's Hospital Compare website has reported compulsory measures. Leapfrog's Hospital Safety Score (HSS) grades incorporate SPS and Medicare measures. We evaluate associations between Leapfrog SPS and Medicare measures, and the impact of SPS on HSS grades.

METHODS

Using 2013 hospital data, we linked Leapfrog HSS data with central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) standardized infection ratios (SIRs), and Hospital Readmission and Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program penalties incorporating 2013 performance. For SPS-providing hospitals, we used linear and logistic regression models to predict CLABSI/CAUTI SIRs and penalties as a function of SPS. For hospitals not reporting SPS, we simulated change in HSS grades after imputing a range of SPS.

RESULTS

In total, 1089 hospitals reported SPS; >50% self-reported perfect scores for all but 1 measure. No SPS measures were associated with SIRs. One SPS (feedback) was associated with lower odds of HAC penalization (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.97). Among hospitals not reporting SPS (N=1080), 98% and 54% saw grades decline by 1+ letters with first and 10th percentile SPS imputed, respectively; 49% and 54% saw grades improve by 1+ letter with median and highest SPS imputed.

CONCLUSIONS

Voluntary Leapfrog SPS measures skew toward positive self-report and bear little association with compulsory Medicare outcomes and penalties. SPS significantly impacts HSS grades, particularly when lower SPS is reported. With increasing compulsory reporting, Leapfrog SPS seems limited for comparing hospital performance.

Patient safety in the critical care environment

Improving the quality and safety of intensive care unit (ICU) care in the United States is a significant challenge for the future. Obtaining improvement in systems of care is difficult given the reactionary mode physicians tend to enter when dealing with moment-to-moment crises. It will be important to implement quality and safety measures that are already supported by evidence. Improvement of device safety will be critical to reducing the large number of device-related complications that occur in US ICUs. Prospective collection of adverse events with rigorous analysis will be important to allow systematic errors to be exposed and corrected.

Association between Leapfrog safe practices score and hospital mortality in major surgery

BACKGROUND

The Leapfrog Group reports on hospitals' adoption of the National Quality Forum Patient Safety Practices. However, it is unknown whether hospital compliance with these safe practices is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

We analyzed the association between hospital mortality and Leapfrog Safe Practices among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n=18,565), abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n=2777), and hip replacement (n=25,067) in hospitals participating in the 2007 Leapfrog Hospital Survey using logistic regression.

RESULTS

After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, we found that the total safety score (adjusted odds ratio: 1.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.999-1.001) was not associated with hospital mortality. Computerized physician order entry and ICU physician staffing were also not associated with hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that patients undergoing major surgery at hospitals which scored higher on the Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey had lower mortality rates. The Leapfrog safe practices score as a standalone quality measure may have limited power to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality hospitals.