Accepting critically ill transfer patients: Adverse effect on a referral center's outcome and benchmark measures

被引:172
作者
Rosenberg, AL
Hofer, TP
Strachan, C
Watts, CM
Hayward, RA
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Ctr Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Crit Care, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] Vet Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare Syst, Dept Vet Affairs Hlth Serv Res & Dev Serv, Ann Arbor, MI USA
关键词
INTENSIVE-CARE-UNIT; QUALITY-OF-CARE; ACADEMIC-MEDICAL-CENTER; LEAD-TIME BIAS; MANAGED CARE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; INTERHOSPITAL TRANSFERS; ACUTE PHYSIOLOGY; RISK ADJUSTMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-138-11-200306030-00009
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Common methods of benchmarking clinical performance rarely, if ever, account for admission source and, in particular, the effect of a patient being transferred from one medical center to another. Small biases in comparisons of observed versus expected deaths can substantially affect how high-quality institutions compare with peer hospitals. With the most sophisticated and validated set of case-mix measures available for patients, the intensive care unit is an ideal setting in which to study the effect of a patient's being transferred from another hospital. Objective: To determine the extent of bias in benchmarking outcomes when performance measures do not account for transfer patients' greater severity of illness. Design: Prospectively developed cohort study. Setting: Medical intensive care unit (MICU) at a tertiary care university hospital. Patients: 4579 consecutive admissions for 4208 patients from 1 January 1994 to 1 April 1998. Measurements: MICU and hospital lengths of stay, MICU readmission, and hospital mortality rates. Results: Compared with directly admitted patients, MICU patients transferred from another hospital had significantly higher Acute Physiology Scores at the time of admission and discharge (P = 0.001). Even after full adjustment for case mix and severity of illness, transfer patients had a 38% longer MICU stay (95% CI, 32% to 45%), a 41% longer hospital stay (CI, 34% to 50%), and a 2.2 times greater odds of hospital mortality (CI, 1.7 to 2.8) than directly admitted patients. With identical efficiency and quality, a referral hospital with a 25% MICU transfer rate compared with another with a 0% transfer rate would be penalized by 14 excess deaths per 1000 admissions when a benchmarking program adjusts only for case mix and severity of illness and not for the source of admission. Conclusions: In a setting with the most thorough diagnostic-based, case-mix adjustment and the most physiologically precise severity-of-illness information, accepting transfer patients can adversely affect efficiency and quality benchmarks. Benchmarking and profiling efforts beyond intensive care units must also recognize and account for this phenomenon; otherwise, referral centers may have an incentive to refuse care for patients who could benefit from being transferred to their facility.
引用
收藏
页码:882 / 890
页数:9
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]   Recognition of patient referral desires in an academic managed care plan - Frequency, determinants, and outcomes [J].
Albertson, GA ;
Lin, CT ;
Kutner, J ;
Schilling, LM ;
Anderson, SN ;
Anderson, RJ .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2000, 15 (04) :242-247
[2]   Scoring system fatigue ... and the search for a way forward [J].
Angus, DC .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2000, 28 (06) :2145-2146
[3]   Academic managed care organizations and adverse selection under Medicaid managed care in Tennessee [J].
Bailey, JE ;
Van Brunt, DL ;
Mirvis, DM ;
McDaniel, S ;
Spears, CR ;
Chang, CF ;
Schaberg, DR .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 282 (11) :1067-1072
[4]   Comparing the hospitalizations of transfer and non-transfer patients in an academic medical center [J].
Bernard, AM ;
Hayward, RA ;
Rosevear, J ;
Chun, H ;
McMahon, LF .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1996, 71 (03) :262-266
[5]   Can physician profiles be trusted? [J].
Bindman, AB .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1999, 281 (22) :2142-2143
[6]   Quality of care .1. What is it? [J].
Blumenthal, D .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1996, 335 (12) :891-894
[7]   ELECTIVE INTRAHOSPITAL ADMISSIONS VERSUS ACUTE INTERHOSPITAL TRANSFERS TO A SURGICAL INTENSIVE-CARE UNIT - COST AND OUTCOME PREDICTION [J].
BORLASE, BC ;
BAXTER, JK ;
KENNEY, PR ;
FORSE, RA ;
BENOTTI, PN ;
BLACKBURN, GL .
JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 1991, 31 (07) :915-919
[8]   Managed care, medical technology, and health care cost growth: A review of the evidence [J].
Chernew, ME ;
Hirth, RA ;
Sonnad, SS ;
Ermann, R ;
Fendrick, AM .
MEDICAL CARE RESEARCH AND REVIEW, 1998, 55 (03) :259-288
[9]  
CLEMMITT M, 2001, MED HLTH S, V55, P1
[10]   INTERHOSPITAL COMPARISONS OF PATIENT OUTCOME FROM INTENSIVE-CARE - IMPORTANCE OF LEAD-TIME BIAS [J].
DRAGSTED, L ;
JORGENSEN, J ;
JENSEN, NH ;
BONSING, E ;
JACOBSEN, E ;
KNAUS, WA ;
QVIST, J .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 1989, 17 (05) :418-422