PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Scott C Williams

Publications and source records attributed to Scott C Williams.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
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

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↗