4.1 Article

Adverse Effects of the Medicare PSI-90 Hospital Penalty System on Revenue-Neutral Hospital-Acquired Conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF PATIENT SAFETY
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 E97-E102

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000517

关键词

medicare; quality of care; payments; pressure injury; patient safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Health systems are grappling with improving the quality and safety of health care. By setting clear expectations, there is an opportunity to configure care models to decrease the risk of adverse events and promote the quality of care. The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have used Patient Safety Indicator 90 (PSI90), a composite rate of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs), to adjust payments and score hospitals on quality since 2015. However, PSI90 may be associated with adverse prioritization for preventing some conditions over others. Our objective was to evaluate the time-dependent rates of HACs between 2013 and 2016 to assess the association of funding models on adverse events, particularly pressure injury. Methods We analyzed a retrospective observational cohort of patients hospitalized in US Academic Medical Centers observed by the Vizient CDB/RM pre-post PSI90 implementation. Changes in HAC component rates of PSI90 between 2013 and 2016 were measured longitudinally using mixed-effects negative binomial regression modeling. Results Regardless of whether the composite measure of patient outcomes was PSI90 or all HACs, in general, there was significant decrease after PSI90 was implemented, reflecting an association between PSI90 and CMS reimbursement policy. However, pressure injury rates increased by 29.4% (SE = 0.08;P< 0.05) during this time frame, the only HAC observed to increase related to PSI90. Conclusions Patient safety in hospitals will only thoroughly improve when hospitals are fully incentivized to practice prevention of all HACs rather than work around the harms that result from failed prevention efforts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据