PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6795352

Case mix complexity differences between teaching and nonteaching hospitals.

Abstract

In the study reported here, the authors measured the differences between teaching and nonteaching hospitals in case mix complexity and provided some detail concerning the differences. They measured case complexity in a sample of 200 short-term general hospitals by the Resource Need Index (RNI) using a cross-classification of 3,490 case types with weights compiled from patient charges. Median RNI values were moderately higher for teaching than for nonteaching hospitals both for the hospital as a whole and for each clinical service except obstetrics-gynecology. The most resource-intensive case type were relatively more frequent in the teaching hospitals, but the least resource-intensive types were of about equal relative frequency in the two hospital groups. The results show that teaching hospitals could be expected to cost somewhat more per patient even if case mix were the only factor.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R P Ament, E J Kobrinski, W R Wood. 1981. Case mix complexity differences between teaching and nonteaching hospitals.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198111000-00003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

General practitioner fundholding: weighing the evidence.

A new development in the British National Health Service is fundholding, whereby certain general practitioners are given budgets from which they purchase services for patients. Our knowledge about fundholding is rudimentary. Many important questions remain unanswered. These include: the impact of fundholding on the efficiency of overall resource utilisation; its effect on strategic planning; its effect on equity; its impact on the role of the doctor and the doctor-patient relationship; and its consequences for practice organisation and the culture of primary care. Even the scant results we do have must be interpreted cautiously. Fundholding was introduced during a period of great turbulence for general practice. Its strategic function was uncertain and its impact has been confounded by the effects of a series of earlier and concurrent policy changes. Few reliable conclusions about fundholding, either positive or negative, can be drawn from existing research.

Costs and Cost Analysis