Risk-standardized Mortality Ratio Research Articles

A decade of firearm injuries: Have we improved?

Firearm injuries are a growing public health issue, with marked increases coinciding with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study evaluates temporal trends over the past decade, hypothesizing that despite a growing number of injuries, mortality would be unaffected. In addition, the study characterizes the types of centers affected disproportionately by the reported firearm injury surge in 2020. Patients 18 years and older with firearm injuries from 2011 to 2020 were identified retrospectively using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB®). Trauma centers not operating for the entirety of the study period were excluded to allow for temporal comparisons. Joinpoint regression and risk-standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were used to evaluate injury counts and adjusted mortality over time. Subgroup analysis was performed to describe centers with the largest increases in firearm injuries in 2020. A total of 238,674 patients, treated at 420 unique trauma centers, met inclusion criteria. Firearm injuries increased by 31.1% in 2020, compared to an annual percent change of 2.4% from 2011 to 2019 ( p = 0.01). Subset analysis of centers with the largest changes in firearm injuries in 2020 found that they were more often Level I centers, with higher historic trauma volumes and percentages of firearm injuries ( p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality decreased by 0.9% from 2011 to 2020, but after controlling for demographics, injury characteristics and physiology, there was no difference in adjusted mortality over the same time period. However, among patients with injury severity scores ≥25, adjusted mortality improved compared with 2011 (SMR of 0.950 in 2020; 95% confidence interval, 0.916-0.986). Firearm injuries pose an increasing burden to trauma systems, with Level I and high-volume centers seeing the largest growth in 2020. Despite increasing numbers of firearm injuries, mortality has remained unchanged over the past decade. Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Trends in Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Mortality Following Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2008 to 2018.

Background Advances in technology and care quality have transformed the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but little is known about trends in mortality rates across separate time periods after hospitalization. Methods and Results We identified all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with incident AMI from 2008 to 2018. We calculated unadjusted mortality rates by dividing the number of all-cause deaths by the number of patients with incident AMI for the following time periods: acute (in hospital), post acute (0-30 days after hospital discharge), short term (31 days to 1 year after discharge), intermediate term (1-2 years after discharge), and long term (2-3 years after discharge). Each period was considered separately (ie, patients who died during one period were not counted in subsequent periods). Using logistic regression to account for differences in patient characteristics, we calculated annual risk standardized mortality ratios defined as observed over expected mortality based on 2008 rates. Among 768 084 patients with incident AMI (mean age 81 years, 48% male, 87% White), declines in observed-to-expected mortality ratios were observed for each time period: acute (0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71]), postacute (0.72 [95% CI, 0.71-0.75]), short term (0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.78]), intermediate term (0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.81]), and long term (0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.79]). Declines were observed both for patients with and without ST-segment-elevation AMI. Conclusions For patients with incident AMI, there have been improvements in mortality rates across periods spanning the hospital stay through 3 years after discharge, reflecting advances in AMI care from hospitalization through long-term outpatient follow-up.

Social determinants of health and patient-level mortality prediction after trauma.

Social determinants of health (SDOH) impact patient outcomes in trauma. Census data are often used to account for SDOH; however, there is no consensus on which variables are most important. Social vulnerability indices offer the advantage of combining multiple constructs into a single variable. Our objective was to determine if incorporation of SDOH in patient-level risk-adjusted outcome modeling improved predictive performance. We evaluated two social vulnerability indices at the zip code level: Distressed Community Index (DCI) and National Risk Index (NRI). Individual variable combinations from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's SDOH data set were used for comparison. Patients were obtained from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study 2000 to 2020. These measures were added to a validated base mortality prediction model with comparison of area under the curve and Bayesian information criterion. We performed center benchmarking using risk-standardized mortality ratios to evaluate change in rank and outlier status based on SDOH. Geospatial analysis identified geographic variation and autocorrelation. There were 449,541 patients included. The DCI and NRI were associated with an increase in mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03 per 10% percentile rank increase; p < 0.01, respectively). The DCI, NRI, and seven Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality variables also improved base model fit but discrimination was similar. Two thirds of centers changed mortality ranking when accounting for SDOH compared with the base model alone. Outlier status changed in 7% of centers, most representing an improvement from worse-than-expected to nonoutlier or nonoutlier to better-than-expected. There was significant geographic variation and autocorrelation of the DCI and NRI (DCI; Moran's I 0.62, p = 0.01; NRI; Moran's I 0.34, p = 0.01). Social determinants of health are associated with an individual patient's risk of mortality after injury. Accounting for SDOH may be important in risk adjustment for trauma center benchmarking. Prognostic/Epidemiologic, level IV.

How access, appropriateness, and quality of care affect patient outcomes for time-sensitive medical emergencies in British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT&#x0D; ObjectivesCox Proportional Hazards models tested the relationship between access to care for time sensitive medical events and 30-day survival while controlling for appropriateness and quality of care.&#x0D; ApproachA population study of all acute myocardial infarction (AMI), trauma, and stroke events treated within British Columbia between April 1st 1999 and March 31st 2013. Data sources included: the Discharge Abstract Database (DAD); a registry file; the Vital Statistics Mortality data; and the Medical Services Plan (MSP) Payment Information.&#x0D; Access to care was estimated with a de-identified residential postal code to hospital distance matrix developed using origin-destination network analysis in ArcGIS 10.2. Appropriateness of care compared national protocols with treatment received. Care that was contraindicated, outdated, or at an inexperienced facility was inappropriate. Quality of care was an outcome measure that used risk-standardized mortality ratios and funnel plots to identify hospitals that offered poor care.&#x0D; ResultsThere were 106,409 AMI, 220,602 trauma, and 88,136 stroke events that occurred during the study period and used in condition specific hierarchical hazards models. Adjusted hazards ratios (aHR) found access to care were not associated with 30-day mortality after controlling for appropriateness and quality of care along with patient (i.e. age, sex, income, rurality, frailty) and system specific (i.e. method of transport, transfer patterns, facility volume, rurality, peer group) characteristics. Appropriate care reduced the hazard of mortality for all three conditions: AMI aHR=0.860 (95% CI=0.792-0.993, p-value=0.0003); stroke aHR=0.448 (95% CI=0.324-0.619, p-value&lt;0.0001) and trauma aHR=0.824 (95% CI=0.703-0.967, p-value=0.0176). Quality of care reduced hazards of mortality for trauma (aHR=0.689, 95% CI=0.586-0.808, p-value&lt;0.0001) and stroke (aHR=0.762, 95% CI=0.689-0.842, p-value&lt;0.0001). Inter-hospital transfers were protective for AMI (aHR=0.513, 95% CI=0.406-0.649, p-value&lt;0.0001) and stroke (aHR=0.768, 95% CI=0.630-0.936, p-value=0.0089) but detrimental for trauma (aHR=1.583, 95%CI=1.310-1.913, p-value&lt;0.0001). Method of transport was also significant. Self-transport was protective for trauma (aHR=0.462, 95% CI=0.417-0.513, p-value&lt;0.0001) and stroke (aHR=0.330, 95% CI=0.301-0.363, p-value&lt;0.0001). Older age was associated with higher mortality rates across all three conditions (p-value&lt;0.0001) and being female increased the hazard of death for AMI (aHR=1.049, 95% CI=1.010-1.088, p-value=0.0125) but was protective for trauma (aHR=0.583, 95% CI=0.551-0.617, p-value&lt;0.0001) events.&#x0D; ConclusionAs health systems evolve to meet the needs of their patients and work to provide equitable care under economic pressure for efficiency, it is important to understand how access, appropriateness and quality of care affect patient outcomes and distribute services accordingly.

Practice Variation Among Hospitals in Revascularization Therapy and Its Association With Procedure-related Mortality.

While substantial practice variation in coronary revascularization has been described and deviation from clinical practice guidelines has been associated with worse outcomes, the degree to which this is driven by flawed decision making and/or appropriate deviation associated with comorbid conditions is unknown. We evaluated heterogeneity in procedure use, and the extent to which hospital-level practice variation is related to surgical mortality. We analyzed data on 554,563 inpatients undergoing either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting at 391 centers in 6 states. Procedure-specific risk models were developed based on demographics and comorbidities, allowing for differential effects of comorbidities for each sex. For each patient, the revascularization procedure that minimized predicted probability of inhospital mortality was designated as the model-preferred procedure.Hospital-level discordance rates-the proportion of cases in each hospital for which the opposite from the model-preferred procedure was performed-were calculated. Hierarchical linear models were used to analyze the relationship between HDRs and hospital-level risk-standardized mortality ratios (RSMRs). Comorbidities and demographics alone explained between 68% and 86% of overall variation in inhospital mortality (corresponding C-statistics of 0.84-0.93). The mean (SD) HDR was 26.3% (9.6%). There was a positive independent association between HDRs and inhospital mortality, with a 10% increase in HDR associated with an 11% increase in RSMR (P<0.001). Variance in procedure use according to model preference was strongly associated with worse outcomes. A systematic approach to incorporating comorbidity as part of the decision-making process for coronary revascularization is needed.

A hospital-wide system to ensure rapid treatment time across the entire spectrum of emergency percutaneous intervention.

ObjectivesThis study's aim was to describe a hospital‐wide system to deliver rapid door‐to‐balloon time across the entire spectrum of emergency percutaneous intervention.BackgroundMany patients needing emergency PCI are excluded from door‐to‐balloon public reporting metric; these groups do not achieve door‐to‐balloon times ≤90 min and have increased mortality rates. Methods: We prospectively implemented a protocol for patients with STEMI or other emergency indication for catheterization mandating (1) emergency department physician or cardiologist activation of the catheterization lab and (2) immediate patient transfer to an immediately available catheterization lab by an in‐house nursing transfer team.ResultsFrom September 1, 2005 to December 31, 2008, 526 consecutive patients underwent emergency PCI. Median door‐to‐balloon time was 68 min with 85.7% ≤90 min overall. Important subgroups included primary emergency department (62.5 min), cardiorespiratory arrest (71 min), cardiogenic shock (68 min), need for temporary pacemaker or balloon pump (67 min), initial ECG without ST‐elevation (66.5 min), transfer from another ED (84 min), in‐hospital (70 min), and activation indications other than STEMI (68 min). Patients presenting to primary ED and in transfer were compared to historical controls. Treatment ≤90 min increased (28%–85%, P < 0.0001). Mean infarct size decreased, as did hospital length‐of‐stay and admission total hospital costs. Acute myocardial infarction all‐cause 30‐day unadjusted mortality and risk‐standardized mortality ratios were substantially lower than national averages.ConclusionA hospital‐wide systems approach applied across the entire spectrum of emergency PCI leads to rapid door‐to‐balloon time, reduced infarct size and hospitals costs, and low myocardial infarction 30‐day all‐cause mortality. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Variation in Risk-Standardized Mortality of Stroke among Hospitals in Japan.

Despite recent advances in care, stroke remains a life-threatening disease. Little is known about current hospital mortality with stroke and how it varies by hospital in a national clinical setting in Japan. Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database (a national inpatient database in Japan), we identified patients aged ≥20 years who were admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of stroke within 3 days of stroke onset from April 2012 to March 2013. We constructed a multivariable logistic regression model to predict in-hospital death for each patient with patient-level factors, including age, sex, type of stroke, Japan Coma Scale, and modified Rankin Scale. We defined risk-standardized mortality ratio as the ratio of the actual number of in-hospital deaths to the expected number of such deaths for each hospital. A hospital-level multivariable linear regression was modeled to analyze the association between risk-standardized mortality ratio and hospital-level factors. We performed a patient-level Cox regression analysis to examine the association of in-hospital death with both patient-level and hospital-level factors. Of 176,753 eligible patients from 894 hospitals, overall in-hospital mortality was 10.8%. The risk-standardized mortality ratio for stroke varied widely among the hospitals; the proportions of hospitals with risk-standardized mortality ratio categories of ≤0.50, 0.51–1.00, 1.01–1.50, 1.51–2.00, and >2.00 were 3.9%, 47.9%, 41.4%, 5.2%, and 1.5%, respectively. Academic status, presence of a stroke care unit, higher hospital volume and availability of endovascular therapy had a significantly lower risk-standardized mortality ratio; distance from the patient’s residence to the hospital was not associated with the risk-standardized mortality ratio. Our results suggest that stroke-ready hospitals play an important role in improving stroke mortality in Japan.

Percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes in US hospitals with varying structural characteristics: Analysis of the NCDR®

In the United States, there continues to be debate about whether certain types of hospitals deliver improved patient outcomes. We sought to assess the association between hospital organizational characteristics and in-hospital outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Retrospective analysis of 2004 to 2007 data for 694 US hospitals participating in the CathPCI Registry(®). Our analysis focused on 1,113,554 patients who underwent PCI in 471 not-for-profit (NFP) hospitals, 131 major teaching hospitals, 79 for-profit (FP) hospitals, and 13 physician-owned specialty hospitals. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, stroke, bleeding, vascular injury, and a composite representing one or more of the individual complications. We used the current CathPCI Registry mortality risk model to calculate risk-standardized mortality ratios (RSMRs) for each category of hospital and compared hospital groupings for all patients in aggregate and in subgroups stratified by patients' indications for PCI. Patients treated in major teaching hospitals were younger, whereas FP hospitals performed a greater proportion of PCI for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (P < .0001). Specialty hospitals treated patients with less acuity, including a lower proportion of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. In unadjusted analyses, specialty hospitals had significantly lower rates of all adverse outcomes compared with NFP, teaching, and FP hospitals including in-hospital mortality (0.7%, 1.2%, 1.4%, and 1.4%, respectively; P < .001) and the composite end point (2.4%, 4.1%, 4.6%, and 4.3%, respectively; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, RSMR was significantly lower for specialty hospitals when compared with the other 3 groups for all patients in aggregate (RSMR 1.05%, 1.30%, 1.38%, 1.39%; P < .001); these differences remained clinically significant but were no longer statistically significant in subgroup analyses. Specialty hospitals appear to have lower rates of most adverse outcomes for PCI. Specialty hospitals may have developed expertise in narrow procedural areas that could be adapted to the larger population of general hospitals.