This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.
Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.
Press Release Date: March 11, 2003
Four articles, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and about different aspects of health care quality, are featured in the March/April issue of Health Affairs. The articles examine a range of issues: hospital procedure volume used as a proxy for quality; patient safety indicators as a way to benchmark performance and target opportunities for improvement; the role of insurance coverage in explaining racial and ethnic disparities; and high-cost priority conditions identified as areas of focus for improving quality of care.
Staffing Linked to Different Outcomes at Low- and High-Volume Hospitals
Death rates were significantly higher at hospitals that performed fewer of certain complex procedures, such as coronary artery bypass graft or esophageal cancer surgery, than at hospitals that performed a great number of those procedures. AHRQ researchers Anne Elixhauser, Ph.D., Claudia Steiner, M.D., M.P.H., and Irene Fraser, Ph.D., examined data from 2000 on 10 procedures using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, part of the Agency's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, to provide a nationwide view of the link between death rates and how often a hospital performs a procedure.
While the majority of U.S. patients received their procedures in high-volume hospitals, for seven of 10 procedures examined, over 75 percent of hospitals would be considered low-volume. The researchers also found that low-volume hospitals tended to have lower numbers of residents and RNs than high volume hospitals. However, for two procedures, heart transplants and pediatric heart surgery, death rates were the same at high- and low-volume hospitals, and low-volume hospitals had RN and resident staffing equal to or higher than high-volume hospitals.
The researchers found that low-volume hospitals tended to be small, urban non-teaching, or rural institutions that had for-profit ownership, or were located in the southern region of the United States.
Details are in "Volume Thresholds and Associated Hospital Characteristics Using a Nationwide Sample of Hospitals."
Patient Safety Indicators Based on Hospital Data Can Identify Potential Safety-Related Problems
A test of AHRQ's soon-to-be released Patient Safety Indicators demonstrates that, in general, the number of potential safety-related events of most non-obstetric PSIs decreased between 1995 and 2000. The PSIs developed by AHRQ's Evidence-based Practice Center at Stanford and the University of California, use diagnosis codes to detect potential adverse events in patients who have undergone medical or surgical care. The test of the 20 PSIs, led by Patrick S. Romano, M.D., M.PH., of the University of California at Davis, provides a national profile of patient safety. The PSIs were designed for use with hospital administrative data and were applied in this study to AHRQ's Nationwide Inpatient Sample, part of the Agency's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, to identify trends in potential patient safety problems.
The study found that most technical complications, such as postoperative hemorrhage or reopening of a wound, decreased between 1995 and 2000, except for a 7-percent rise in the number of accidental punctures and lacerations. Also during that time, obstetric trauma decreased about 3 percent, foreign bodies left during procedures decreased 7 percent, anesthesia complications decreased 18 percent; and transfusion reactions decreased 40 percent.
The PSIs will provide a portion of the analysis for AHRQ's National Healthcare Quality Report, which is due out later this year. They will be useful primarily as screening tools for hospitals and hospital systems, medical groups, health plans, and purchasers to identify potential patient safety problems that merit further investigation. Providers may use them to screen for preventable complications and to identify opportunities for quality improvement on the system level.
Details are in "A National Profile of Patient Safety in U.S. Hospitals Based on Administrative Data."
Insurance Coverage Alone Cannot Explain Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Care
Racial and ethnic minority groups continue to have poorer access to quality health care services and different patterns of health care use relative to whites, according to 1996-1999 data from AHRQ's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To try to explain the reasons, AHRQ researchers Samuel H. Zuvekas, Ph.D., and Gregg S. Taliaferro, Ph.D., examined the role that insurance coverage, the delivery system, and external factors play in explaining persistent disparities in access to health care among racial and ethnic groups of all ages. They found that variations in health insurance coverage are not the only source of disparities in access, and actually may be only a small part of the explanation.
Their findings indicate that while health insurance coverage is important, differences in coverage explained only up to one-third of disparities between Hispanics and whites and two-fifths of disparities between blacks and whites. External factors, such as employment, job characteristics, marital status, income, and education are key reasons why minorities are less likely than whites to have private health insurance. However, disparities exist even among well-insured minority racial and ethnic groups, and large portions of disparities remain unexplained. The researchers conclude that health care policies that simply seek to increase insurance coverage may not be sufficient to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in health care.
Details are in "Pathways to Access: Health Insurance, the Health Care Delivery System and Racial/Ethnic Disparities, 1996-1999."
High-Cost Conditions Identify Areas of Focus to Improve Quality of Care
The most expensive conditions in the United States are primarily chronic diseases, such as heart disease ($58 billion per year), cancer ($46 billion per year), and mental illness ($30 billion per year), according to a new analysis of data from AHRQ's 1997 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey examining the 15 most expensive conditions in the United States. However, AHRQ analysts Joel W. Cohen, Ph.D., and Nancy Krauss also found that several of the top 15 were acute conditions, such as trauma, pneumonia, and infectious diseases.
Their findings indicate that most individuals with at least one of the top 15 conditions had more than one, with costs incurred by the affected individuals dramatically increasing as the number of co-existing conditions increased. In general, the people who used the most hospital inpatient services had the highest expenses. Private insurance and Medicare were the primary sources of payment for most of the top 15 conditions. The findings highlight factors, such as complex financing arrangements and co-existing conditions that are likely to complicate efforts to reform the current health care system.
Details are in "Expenditures and Service Mix for Persons with High Cost Conditions."
For more information, please contact AHRQ Public Affairs, (301) 427-1364: Karen Carp, (301) 427-1858 (KCarp@ahrq.gov); Karen Migdail, (301) 427-1855 (KMigdail@ahrq.gov).