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

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.

Quality of Care Among Medicare Patients Undergoing Pancreatic Surgery: Safety Grade, Magnet Recognition, and Leapfrog Minimum Volume Standards-Which Quality Benchmark Matters?

BACKGROUND

The association of national quality benchmarking metrics with postoperative outcomes following complex surgery remains unknown. We assessed the relationship between the "quality trifactor" of Leapfrog minimum volume standards, Hospital Safety Grade A, and Magnet Recognition with outcomes of Medicare patients undergoing pancreatectomy.

METHODS

The Standard Analytic Files (SAF) merged with Leapfrog Hospital Survey and Leapfrog Safety Scores Denominator Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic procedures between 2013 and 2015. Primary outcomes were overall and serious complications, as well as 30- and 90-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to evaluate possible associations among hospitals meeting the quality trifactor and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 4853 Medicare patients, 909 (18.7%) underwent pancreatectomy at hospitals meeting the quality trifactor. Among 260 hospitals, 7.3% (n = 19) met the quality trifactor. Safety Grade A (48.8%, n = 127) was the most commonly met criterion followed by Magnet Recognition (36.2%, n = 94); the Leapfrog minimum volume standards were achieved by 25% (n = 65) of hospitals. Patients undergoing surgery at hospitals that were only Safety Grade A and Magnet designated, but did not meet Leapfrog criteria, had higher odds of serious complications (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.51). In contrast, patients undergoing treatment at hospitals having all three designations (i.e., the quality trifactor) had 40% and 39% lower odds of both serious complications (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.97) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.89), respectively. In turn, patients undergoing pancreatectomy at quality trifactor hospitals had higher odds of experiencing the composite quality measure textbook outcome (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.59) versus patients undergoing pancreatectomy at non-trifactor hospitals.

CONCLUSION

While Safety Grade A and Magnet designation alone were not associated with higher odds of an optimal composite outcome following pancreatectomy, compliance with Leapfrog criteria to achieve the "quality trifactor" metric was associated with lower odds of serious complications and mortality.

Measuring the Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Quality for Pancreatic Surgery: Transition to a Focused, Very High-volume Program

Outcomes are superior for pancreatic resection at high-volume centers. To assess the impact of focused high-volume multidisciplinary care, a quality index (QI) was used to review our experience. Data from 1996 to July 2012 were analyzed in three groups: 1) early (1996 to 2007); 2) transition (2008 to 2009); and 3) mature (2010 to July 2012). A total of 239 patients were included with a mean age of 63.4 years and the majority were white (65.7%). The number of patients with Charlson comorbidity index greater than 2 and age older than 80 years increased comparing Group 1 with latter groups. Volume increased over time: Group 1 (n = 93) 7.75/year, Group 2 (n = 51) 25.5/year, and Group 3 (n = 95) 39/year. Overall mortality was 5.9 per cent: Group 1, 4.3 per cent; Group 2, 11.5 per cent; and Group 3, 3.9 per cent ( P = 0.0454). The QI score incorporates documentation, chemotherapy, resection for Stage I/II, time to treatment, margins, lymph nodes, mortality, and surgical volume with a maximum possible score 10. The QI increased over time: 3 in Group 1; 4 in Group 2; and 6 in Group 3. An improvement was noted for the quality indicators: surgical resection ( P = 0.0125) and use of palliative and adjuvant therapy ( P = 0.0144 and < 0.0001). Implementation of a focused multidisciplinary pancreatic surgery program increases quality.

Health Care Policy and Outcomes after Colon and Rectal Surgery: What Is the Bigger Picture?-Cost Containment, Incentivizing Value, Transparency, and Centers of Excellence

Early in the 21st century, the costs of health care in the United States have spiraled out of control, where the per capita spending is $9,237 per person-the highest in the world. By 2020, an estimated 20% of GDP will be spent on health care. The issue of cost and quality is now becoming a national crisis, with ∼50% of hospitals losing money on clinical operations, forcing closure of essential critical access hospitals, and forcing health care workers to relocate or change professions. This crisis will only worsen with the graying of America, as an estimated 17% of Americans will be over the age of 65 years by the year 2020. The policy and financial structures on which these changes are based are important factors of which practicing surgeons should be aware. This review discusses recent national health care policy reform and specific topics including cost-containment legislation, value-based incentives and penalties, transparency, and centers of excellence in colorectal surgery.

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.

Safety in numbers: the development of Leapfrog's composite patient safety score for U.S. hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To develop a composite patient safety score that provides patients, health-care providers, and health-care purchasers with a standardized method to evaluate patient safety in general acute care hospitals in the United States.

METHODS

The Leapfrog Group sought guidance from a panel of national patient safety experts to develop the composite score. Candidate patient safety performance measures for inclusion in the score were identified from publicly reported national sources. Hospital performance on each measure was converted into a "z-score" and then aggregated using measure-specific weights. A reference mean score was set at 3, with scores interpreted in terms of standard deviations above or below the mean, with above reflecting better than average performance.

RESULTS

Twenty-six measures were included in the score. The mean composite score for 2652 general acute care hospitals in the United States was 2.97 (range by hospital, 0.46-3.94). Safety scores were slightly lower for hospitals that were publicly owned, rural in location, or had a larger percentage of patients with Medicaid as their primary insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

The Leapfrog patient safety composite provides a standardized method to evaluate patient safety in general acute care hospitals in the United States. While constrained by available data and publicly reported scores on patient safety measures, the composite score reflects the best available evidence regarding a hospital's efforts and outcomes in patient safety. Additional analyses are needed, but the score did not seem to have a strong bias against hospitals with specific characteristics. The composite score will continue to be refined over time as measures of patient safety evolve.

Specialization and utilization after hepatectomy in academic medical centers

BACKGROUND

Specialized procedures such as hepatectomy are performed by a variety of specialties in surgery. We aimed to determine whether variation exists among utilization of resources, cost, and patient outcomes by specialty, surgeon case volume, and center case volume for hepatectomy.

METHODS

We queried centers (n = 50) in the University Health Consortium database from 2007-2010 for patients who underwent elective hepatectomy in which specialty was designated general surgeon (n = 2685; 30%) or specialist surgeon (n = 6277; 70%), surgeon volume was designated high volume (>38 cases annually) and center volume was designated high volume (>100 cases annually). We then stratified our cohort by primary diagnosis, defined as primary tumor (n = 2241; 25%), secondary tumor (n = 5466; 61%), and benign (n = 1255; 14%).

RESULTS

Specialist surgeons performed more cases for primary malignancy (primary 26% versus 15%) while general surgeons operated more for secondary malignancies (67% versus 61%) and benign disease (18% versus 13%). Specialists were associated with a shorter total length of stay (LOS) (5 d versus 6 d; P < 0.01) and lower in-hospital morbidity (7% versus 11%; P < 0.01). Patients treated by high volume surgeons or at high volume centers were less likely to die than those treated by low volume surgeons or at low volume centers, (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.89) and (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.13-0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical specialization, surgeon volume and center volume may be important metrics for quality and utilization in complex procedures like hepatectomy. Further studies are necessary to link direct factors related to hospital performance in the changing healthcare environment.