Specialty Hospital Care Research Articles

The Child Health Care System in Italy

Pediatric care in Italy has been based during the last 40years on the increased awareness of the importance of meeting the psychosocial and developmental needs of children and of the role of families in promoting the health and well-being of their children. The pediatric health care system in Italy is part of the national health system. It is made up of 3 main levels of intervention: first access/primary care, secondary care/hospital care, and tertiary care based on specialty hospital care. This overview will also include a brief report on neonatal care, pediatric preventive health care, health service accreditation programs, and postgraduate training in pediatrics. The quality of the Italian child health care system is now considered to be in serious danger because of the restriction of investments in public health caused both by the 2008 global and national economic crisis and by a reduction of the pediatric workforce as a result of progressively insufficient replacement of specialists in pediatrics.

Do specialty cardiac hospitals have greater adherence to acute myocardial infarction and heart failure process measures? An empirical assessment using Medicare quality measures: Quality of care in cardiac specialty hospitals

Supporters of specialty hospitals claim these facilities provide better patient care; however, empirical data on quality of care in specialty hospitals are limited. We used data reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) during 2005 to 2006 to compare the quality of care of specialty cardiac hospitals, competing general hospitals and a group of top-ranked cardiac hospitals as identified by the US News & World Report's list of "America's best cardiac hospitals" for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF). The main outcome was hospital compliance with CMS performance measures, expressed as the percentage of eligible patients with AMI or HF who received guidelines-based treatment. The mean compliance for all 179 hospitals was 95% for AMI measures, 91% for HF measures, and 94% for all cardiac care (AMI plus HF measures). Specialty hospitals' compliance with AMI and HF guidelines (95.2% and 91.3%) was similar to that of competing general hospitals (94.7% and 90.5%), whereas top-ranked cardiac hospitals compliance with both AMI and CHF measures (96.8% and 94.1%) was higher (P < .001). In supplemental analyses, we found that 40% of specialty hospitals were ranked in the top quartile of all 179 hospitals, as compared with 22.9% of top-ranked cardiac hospitals. Conversely, 25% specialty hospitals were in the lowest quartile, as compared to 7% of top-ranked cardiac hospitals. Quality of care in specialty cardiac hospitals is similar to quality in competing general hospitals and top-ranked cardiac care hospitals, as measured by compliance with AMI and HF performance indicators. Quality of care appears to be slightly better for top-ranked cardiac hospitals as compared to general hospitals, but the overall performance of all hospitals is high.

A Comparison of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in Specialty and General Hospitals

The emergence of specialty orthopaedic hospitals has generated widespread controversy, but little is known about the quality of care they deliver. Our objective was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing major joint replacement in specialty orthopaedic and general hospitals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 51,788 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent total hip replacement and 99,765 who underwent total knee replacement in thirty-eight specialty orthopaedic hospitals and 517 general hospitals between 1999 and 2003. We compared demographic data, rates of comorbid illness, and socioeconomic status of patients treated in specialty and general hospitals. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of an adverse outcome (death or selected surgical complications) after adjustment for patient characteristics and hospital procedural volume. The demographic data and the ratio of primary to revision arthroplasties were similar, but patients who received care in specialty hospitals had less comorbidity and resided in more affluent zip codes than their counterparts in general hospitals in 2003. Specialty hospitals had significantly greater mean procedural volumes in 2003 than did general hospitals for both total hip replacement (thirty-three compared with twenty procedures; p = 0.05) and total knee replacement (seventy-five compared with forty procedures; p = 0.006). The unadjusted rate of adverse outcomes was lower in specialty hospitals than in general hospitals for total hip replacement (3.0% compared with 6.9%; p < 0.001) and total knee replacement (2.1% compared with 3.9%; p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics and procedural volume, the odds of adverse outcomes occurring were significantly lower for patients in specialty hospitals than for those in general hospitals for both primary joint replacement (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.75; p < 0.001) and revision joint replacement (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.66; p < 0.001). After adjustment for patient characteristics and hospital volume, the specialty orthopaedic hospitals had better patient outcomes, as measured by Medicare administrative data, than did the general hospitals.