PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jerod M Loeb

Publications and source records attributed to Jerod M Loeb.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Strategies for reducing the door-to-balloon time in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Prompt reperfusion treatment is essential for patients who have myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. Guidelines recommend that the interval between arrival at the hospital and intracoronary balloon inflation (door-to-balloon time) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention should be 90 minutes or less. However, few hospitals meet this objective. We sought to identify hospital strategies that were significantly associated with a faster door-to-balloon time. METHODS: We surveyed 365 hospitals to determine whether each of 28 specific strategies was in use. We used hierarchical generalized linear models and data on patients from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to determine the association between hospital strategies and the door-to-balloon time. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, six strategies were significantly associated with a faster door-to-balloon time. These strategies included having emergency medicine physicians activate the catheterization laboratory (mean reduction in door-to-balloon time, 8.2 minutes), having a single call to a central page operator activate the laboratory (13.8 minutes), having the emergency department activate the catheterization laboratory while the patient is en route to the hospital (15.4 minutes), expecting staff to arrive in the catheterization laboratory within 20 minutes after being paged (vs. >30 minutes) (19.3 minutes), having an attending cardiologist always on site (14.6 minutes), and having staff in the emergency department and the catheterization laboratory use real-time data feedback (8.6 minutes). Despite the effectiveness of these strategies, only a minority of hospitals surveyed were using them. CONCLUSIONS: Several specific hospital strategies are associated with a significant reduction in the door-to-balloon time in the management of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗
PubMed2006

Performance of top-ranked heart care hospitals on evidence-based process measures.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing availability of evidence-based clinical performance measure data that compares the performances of US hospitals, the general public continues to rely on more popular resources such as the US News & World Report annual publication of "America's Best Hospitals" for information on hospital quality. This study evaluated how well hospitals ranked on the US News & World Report list of top heart and heart surgery hospitals performed on acute myocardial infarction and heart failure measures derived from American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association clinical treatment guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study identified 774 hospitals, including 41 of the US News & World Report top 50 heart and heart surgery hospitals. To compare hospitals, 10 rate-based performance measures (6 addressing processes of acute myocardial infarction care and 4 addressing heart failure care), were aggregated into a cardiovascular composite measure. As a group, the US News & World Report hospitals performed statistically better than their peers (mean, 86% versus 83%; P < 0.05). Individually, however, only 23 of the US News & World Report hospitals achieved statistically better-than-average performance compared with the population average, whereas 9 performed significantly worse (P < 0.05). One hundred sixty-seven hospitals in this study routinely implemented evidenced-based heart care > or = 90% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: A number of the US News & World Report top hospitals fell short in regularly applying evidenced-based care for their heart patients. At the same time, many lesser known hospitals routinely provided cardiovascular care that was consistent with nationally established guidelines.

American Heart Association↗
PubMed2006

Integrating hospitals into community emergency preparedness planning.

BACKGROUND: Strong community linkages are essential to a health care organization's overall preparedness for emergencies. OBJECTIVE: To assess community emergency preparedness linkages among hospitals, public health officials, and first responders and to investigate the influence of community hazards, previous preparation for an event requiring national security oversight, and experience responding to actual disasters. DESIGN: With expert advice from an advisory panel, a mailed questionnaire was used to assess linkage issues related to training and drills, equipment, surveillance, laboratory testing, surge capacity, incident management, and communication. SETTING: A simple random sample of 1750 U.S. medical-surgical hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Of 678 hospital representatives that agreed to participate, 575 (33%) completed the questionnaire in early 2004. Respondents were hospital personnel responsible for environmental safety, emergency management, infection control, administration, emergency services, and security. MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence and breadth of participation in community-wide planning; examination of 17 basic elements in a weighted analysis. RESULTS: In a weighted analysis, most hospitals (88.2% [95% CI, 84.1% to 92.3%]) engaged in community-wide drills and exercises, and most (82.2% [CI, 77.8% to 86.5%]) conducted a collaborative threat and vulnerability analysis with community responders. Of all respondents, 57.3% (CI, 52.1% to 62.5%) reported that their community plans addressed the hospital's need for additional supplies and equipment, and 73.0% (CI, 68.1% to 77.9%) reported that decontamination capacity needs were addressed. Fewer reported a direct link to the Health Alert Network (54.4% [CI, 49.3% to 59.5%]) and around-the-clock access to a live voice from a public health department (40.0% [CI, 35.0% to 45.0%]). Performance on many of 17 basic elements was better in large and urban hospitals and was associated with a high number of perceived hazards, previous national security event preparation, and experience in actual response. LIMITATIONS: Responses reflect hospitals' self-perception of linkages. The quality of linkages and the extent of possible biases favoring positive responses were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: In this baseline assessment, most hospitals reported substantial integration. However, results suggest that relationships between hospitals, public health departments, and other critical response entities are not adequately robust. Suggestions for enhancing linkages are discussed.

Community Health Services↗
PubMed2006

Assessing the reliability of standardized performance indicators.

OBJECTIVE: . To investigate the reliability of self-reported standardized performance indicators introduced by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations in July 2002 and implemented in approximately 3400 accredited US hospitals. The study sought to identify the most common data quality problems and determine causes and possible strategies for resolution. DESIGN: Data were independently reabstracted from a random sample of 30 hospitals. Reabstracted data were compared with data originally abstracted, and discrepancies were adjudicated with hospital staff. Structured interviews were used to probe possible reasons for abstraction discrepancies. RESULTS: The mean data element agreement rate for the 61 data elements evaluated was 91.9%, and the mean kappa statistic for binary data elements was 0.68. The rate of agreement for individual data elements ranged from 100 to 62.4%. The mean difference between calculated indicator rates was 4.88% (absolute value) and the range of differences was 0.0-13.3%. Symmetry of disagreement among original abstractors and reabstractors identified eight indicators whose differences in calculated rates were statistically unlikely to have occurred through random chance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although improvement in the accuracy and completeness of the self-reported data is possible and desirable, the baseline level of data reliability appears to be acceptable for indicators used to assess and improve hospital performance on selected clinical topics.

Hospitals↗
PubMed2005

Quality of care in U.S. hospitals as reflected by standardized measures, 2002-2004.

BACKGROUND: In July 2002, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations implemented standardized performance measures that were designed to track the performance of accredited hospitals and encourage improvement in the quality of health care. METHODS: We examined hospitals' performance on 18 standardized indicators of the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. One measure assessed a clinical outcome (death in the hospital after acute myocardial infarction), and the other 17 measures assessed processes of care. Data were collected over a two-year period in more than 3000 accredited hospitals. All participating hospitals received quarterly feedback in the form of comparative reports throughout the study. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis revealed a significant improvement (P<0.01) in the performance of U.S. hospitals on 15 of 18 measures, and no measure showed a significant deterioration. The magnitude of improvement ranged from 3 percent to 33 percent during the eight quarters studied. For 16 of the 17 process-of-care measures, hospitals with a low level of performance at baseline had greater improvements over the subsequent two years than hospitals with a high level of performance at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Over a two-year period, we observed consistent improvement in measures reflecting the process of care for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. Both quantitative and qualitative research are needed to explore the reasons for these improvements.

Heart Failure↗
PubMed2005

The JCAHO patient safety event taxonomy: a standardized terminology and classification schema for near misses and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: The current US national discussions on patient safety are not based on a common language. This hinders systematic application of data obtained from incident reports, and learning from near misses and adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To develop a common terminology and classification schema (taxonomy) for collecting and organizing patient safety data. METHODS: The project comprised a systematic literature review; evaluation of existing patient safety terminologies and classifications, and identification of those that should be included in the core set of a standardized taxonomy; assessment of the taxonomy's face and content validity; the gathering of input from patient safety stakeholders in multiple disciplines; and a preliminary study of the taxonomy's comparative reliability. RESULTS: Elements (terms) and structures (data fields) from existing classification schemes and reporting systems could be grouped into five complementary root nodes or primary classifications: impact, type, domain, cause, and prevention and mitigation. The root nodes were then divided into 21 subclassifications which in turn are subdivided into more than 200 coded categories and an indefinite number of uncoded text fields to capture narrative information. An earlier version of the taxonomy (n = 111 coded categories) demonstrated acceptable comparability with the categorized data requirements of the ICU safety reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) Patient Safety Event Taxonomy could facilitate a common approach for patient safety information systems. Having access to standardized data would make it easier to file patient safety event reports and to conduct root cause analyses in a consistent fashion.

Causality↗
PubMed2005

Building a Hospital Incident Reporting Ontology (HIRO) in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) using the JCAHO Patient Safety Event Taxonomy (PSET).

A Hospital Incident Reporting Ontology (HIRO) is being developed in Protégé-OWL to demonstrate feasibility and clinical value of using an ontology to combine, compare, and analyze data from across many public and private reporting systems collecting adverse events and near misses for patient safety. The HIRO is based on the JCAHO Patient Safety Event Taxonomy (PSET) and de-identified hospital incident reports.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

The current state of performance measurement in health care.

Health care quality measurement is at least 250 years old. While the names and faces of the measures and measurees have changed, the intent of such measurement, i.e. obtaining data and information bearing clinical outcomes, has not changed over the years, and nor have the challenges associated with the measurement of quality in health care. Measurement is not a neutral activity. It evokes considerable anxiety and frustration among all concerned: those who are being measured, those who are doing the measuring, and those who are seeking the data for a variety of purposes. There is little agreement on the philosophy of measurement, on what to measure, on whether or how to adjust for what the patient brings to the clinical encounter, on how data should be analyzed, or on how to report the data; and of course the ultimate questions relate to the value of measurement. Measurement adds new costs to the health care delivery system. Tangible improvements in care, directly attributable to -performance measurement, are repeatedly being documented. However, the jury has not yet returned a verdict on whether performance measurement data are being used by stakeholders for better decision-making.

Quality Assurance, Health Care↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Quality of care for the treatment of acute medical conditions in US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently began reporting on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia. METHODS: We linked performance data submitted for the first half of 2004 to American Hospital Association data on hospital characteristics. We created composite scales for each disease and used factor analysis to identify 2 additional composites based on underlying domains of quality. We estimated logistic regression models to examine the relationship between hospital characteristics and quality. RESULTS: Overall, 75.9% of patients hospitalized with these conditions received recommended care. The mean composite scores and their associated interquartile ranges were 0.85 (0.81-0.95), 0.64 (0.52-0.78), and 0.88 (0.80-0.97) for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia, respectively. After adjustment, for-profit hospitals consistently underperformed not-for-profit hospitals for each condition, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.80) for the congestive heart failure composite measure to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.91) for the pneumonia composite. Major teaching hospitals had better performance on the treatment and diagnosis composite (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.34-1.39) but worse performance on the counseling and prevention composite (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84). Hospitals with more technology available, higher registered nurse staffing, and federal/military designation had higher performance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are more likely to receive high-quality care in not-for-profit hospitals and in hospitals with high registered nurse staffing ratios and more investment in technology. Because payments and sources of payments affect some of these factors (eg, investments in technology and staffing ratios), policy makers should evaluate the effect of alternative payment approaches on quality.

Acute Disease↗