- Prompt: Discuss how the instructions found in 2 Timothy 2:15-16 can be used to inspire Christian healthcare workers to consider quality in their work.
- Requirements: 250 words minimum initial post, 100 words minimum reply
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION Is Emergency Department Quality Related to Other Hospital Quality Domains? Megan McHugh, PhD, Jennifer Neimeyer, PhD, Emilie Powell, MD, MS, Rahul K. Khare, MD, MS, and James G. Adams, MD Abstract Objectives: Systems theory suggests that there should be relatively high correlations among quality measures within an organization. This was an examination of hospital performance across three types of quality measures included in Medicare’s Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program: emergency department (ED)-related clinical process measures, inpatient clinical process measures, and patient experience measures. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether hospital achievement and improvement on the ED quality measures represent a distinct domain of quality. Methods: This was an exploratory, descriptive analysis using publicly available data. Composite scores for the ED, inpatient, and patient experience measures included in the HVBP program were calculated. Correlations and frequencies were run to examine the extent to which achievement and improvement were related across the three quality domains and the number of hospitals that were in the top quartile for performance across multiple quality domains. Results: Achievement scores were calculated for 2,927 hospitals, and improvement scores were calculated for 2,842 hospitals. There was a positive, moderate correlation between ED and inpatient achievement scores (correlation coefﬁcient of 0.50, 95% conﬁdence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.53), but all other correlations were weak (0.16 or less). Only 96 hospitals (3.3%) scored in the top quartile for achievement across the three quality domains; 73 (2.6%) scored in the top quartile for improvement across all three quality domains. Conclusions: Little consistency was found in achievement or improvement across the three quality domains, suggesting that the ED performance represents a distinct domain of quality. Implications include the following: 1) there are broad opportunities for hospitals to improve, 2) patients may not experience consistent quality levels throughout their hospital visit, 3) quality improvement interventions may need to be tailored speciﬁcally to the department, and 4) consumers and policy-makers may not be able to draw conclusions on overall facility quality based on information about one domain. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2014;21:551–557 © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine T he Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is changing the way that it pays for health services.1 In an effort to improve the value of its expenditures, CMS now reimburses providers based on care quality, not just the quantity of services provided. One important component of CMS’ value-based purchasing strategy is the Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program.2 Beginning October 2012, CMS began withholding 1% of Medicare payments and redistributing those funds back to hospitals based on achievement or improvement on 12 process measures and eight patient satisfaction measures (Table 1). Of the 12 process measures included in the ﬁrst year of the program, four are related to care delivered in the emergency department (ED): ﬁbrinolytic therapy received within 30 minutes of hospital arrival (acute myocardial infarction [AMI]-7a), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) received within 90 minutes of hospital From the Center for Healthcare Studies (MM, JN, EP RKK), the Department of Emergency Medicine (MM, EP, RKK, JA), Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. Received October 21, 2013; revisions received November 15 and November 17, 2013; accepted November 18, 2013. The authors did not receive outside support or funding for this research. This work has not been published or presented elsewhere. The authors have no potential conﬂicts of interest to disclose. Supervising Editor: Lowell Gerson, PhD. Address for correspondence and reprints: Megan McHugh, PhD; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine doi: 10.1111/acem.12376 ISSN 1069-6563 PII ISSN 1069-6563583 551 551 552 McHugh et al. • ED QUALITY AND HOSPITAL QUALITY arrival (AMI-8a), blood cultures performed in the ED prior to initial antibiotic received in hospital (pneumonia [PN]-3b), and initial antibiotic selection for communityacquired pneumonia (CAP) in immunocompetent patients (PN-6).2,3 There is a growing interest in emergency medicine to understand factors inﬂuencing performance on these measures.4,5 Systems theory holds that high performance results from a culture of excellence that permeates throughout a hospital and that one should see correlation among quality measures within an organization.6,7 However, previous studies have found that hospitals that perform highly on one dimension of quality (e.g., patient experience) do not necessarily perform highly on others (e.g., mortality).8–10 One could speculate that ED performance represents a distinct dimension of hospital quality. EDs are physically separate and have different reimbursement structures, management, and stafﬁng than inpatient units. If ED performance is not related to hospital performance, it signals a lack of consistency in quality within an organization and that broad hospital quality improvement initiatives may need to be tailored to individual departments. We have previously described hospital performance on the ED measures included in the HVBP program.11 However, to date, there has been no examination of the extent to which ED performance mirrors performance on other domains of hospital quality. We examined hospital achievement and improvement across the three domains of hospital quality included in Medicare’s HVBP program: ED-related clinical process measures, inpatient clinical process measures, and patient experience measures. Our purpose was to determine whether a hospital’s achievement and improvement on the ED quality domain is related to achievement and improvement on the inpatient and patient experience quality domains. Although several studies have investigated hospital performance on publicly reported quality measures,12,13 this effort is unique in its focus on emergency care, its examination of both achievement and improvement, and its use of measures included the new HVBP program. Results have important implications for department and quality improvement leaders, consumers, and policy-makers. METHODS Study Design This was an exploratory, descriptive analysis of secondary data. Our institutional review board determined that approval was not required because the study did not involve human subjects. Study Setting and Population We obtained 2008 through 2010 performance data for the four ED-related clinical process measures, eight inpatient clinical process measures, and eight patient experience measures from the CMS Web site Hospital Compare (http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/). The clinical process measures are chart-abstracted measures that assess hospitals’ compliance on evidence-based care related to AMI, heart failure, pneumonia, and surgical care improvement. The patient experience measures are derived from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, which was developed by the Agency for Table 1 Measures Included in the Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing Program, Fiscal Year 2013 ED-related Clinical Process Measures AMI-7a Fibrinolytic therapy received within 30 minutes of hospital arrival AMI-8a Primary PCI received within 90 minutes of hospital arrival PN_3b Blood cultures performed in the ED prior to initial antibiotic received in hospital PN_6 Initial antibiotic selection for CAP in immunocompetent patient Inpatient Clinical Process Measures HF_1 Discharge instructions SCIP_INF_1 Prophylactic antibiotic received within 1 hour prior to surgical incision SCIP_INF_2 Prophylactic antibiotic selection for surgical patients SCIP_INF_3 Prophylactic antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours after surgery ends SCIP_INF_4 Cardiac surgery patients with controlled 6 AM postoperative serum glucose SCIP_CARD_2 Surgery patients on a beta blocker prior to arrival that received a beta blocker during the postoperative period SCIP_VTE-1 Surgery patients with recommended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis ordered SCIP-VTE-2 Surgery patients who received appropriate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis within 24 hours prior to surgery to 24 hours after surgery Patient Experience Measures Nurses “‘always” communicated well Doctors “always” communicated well Patients “always” received help as soon as they wanted Pain was “always” well controlled Staff “always” explained Room was “always” clean and room was “always” quiet at night Yes, staff “did” give patients discharge information Patients who gave a rating of “9” or “10” (high) Source: Federal Register 2011;76;26490–547. Additional information on measure specifications can be found in the measure specifications manual on CMS’ QualityNet website: http://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=QnetPublic% 2FPage%2FQnetTier4&cid=1228771525863. AMI = acute myocardial infarction; CAP = community-acquired pneumonia; CARD = cardiac; HF = heart failure; INF = infection; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; PN = pneumonia; SCIP = surgical care improvement project; VTE = venous thromboembolism. *ED-related measures. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE • May 2014, Vol. 21, No. 5 • www.aemj.org Healthcare Research and Quality, and asks patients about their experience in the hospital. Although public reporting of data on Hospital Compare is voluntary, only hospitals that report their performance measures are eligible for a full Medicare payment update. Ninetyseven percent of hospitals satisfactorily met the reporting requirements in 2010.14 We linked these data to the 2009 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, which contains information on hospital characteristics (e.g., size, ownership, region, teaching status) to compare the characteristics of the study hospitals with all other general medical and surgical hospitals. Study Protocol We limited our analysis to hospitals that met the criteria for the HVBP program. Hospitals must be acute care hospitals paid under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS). An exception was made for acute care hospitals in Maryland, which are not paid under the IPPS, but are included in the program. Additionally, between 2009 and 2010, hospitals must have reported data from at least 100 HCAHPS surveys and data for at least four clinical process measures with at least 10 eligible cases. We calculated scores for each performance measure according to the method used by CMS for the HVBP program, the details of which are described in the program’s Final Rule published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2011.2 In brief, for each performance measure, hospitals receive an achievement score between 1 and 10 based on how much their current performance score exceeds the median for all hospitals. If the score is below the median, the hospital receives an achievement score of 0. Additionally, hospitals also receive an improvement score between 1 and 10 based on how much the score on the performance measure improved from the previous (i.e., baseline) year. If performance did not improve, the hospital receives an improvement score of 0. Under the HVBP program, the ﬁnal performance score is the higher of the achievement or improvement score. However, because we were interested in looking at both achievement and improvement, we investigated both scores separately. In administering the HVBP program, CMS calculates a composite score for all clinical process measures included in the program. We applied CMS’ composite score methodology separately to the four ED measures, the eight inpatient measures, and the eight patient experience measures for both achievement and improvement, to create six composite scores. For each hospital, we summed total points earned for the performance measures and divided by the total number of points for which the hospital was eligible. Eligible points is equal to 10 (the highest possible score on a performance measure) times the number of performance measures for which the hospital reported at least 10 cases. Following CMS’s methodology, we then multiplied by 100. Each hospital had two composite scores (achievement and improvement) for each quality dimension. The scores ranged from 0 to 100. There are two important differences between CMS’ methodology and our approach. First, CMS uses a 9month performance period for the current and baseline 553 time periods. However, due to the way data are reported in Hospital Compare, we used 12-month periods. October 2008 through September 2009 represented our baseline period, and October 2009 through September 2010 was our current period. These were the most recent data available from Hospital Compare at the time of our analysis. Second, CMS uses a minimum of four clinical process measures to calculate program composite scores. Because there are only four ED-related performance measures, we did not set a minimum for the calculation of the ED quality dimension scores. Data Analysis For both achievement and improvement, we calculated the distribution of hospitals by performance quartile. We calculated the number of hospitals that scored within the top quartile for the ED quality domain and then calculated whether those hospitals were also in the top quartile for the inpatient and patient experience domains. Because we were interested in the association between quality domain scores, but we did not want to assume one-way causal effect (e.g., ED achievement is dependent on inpatient achievement), we used correlations and scatterplots to explore the relationship between the raw composite scores on the three quality domains. We ran the analyses separately for achievement and improvement. Analyses were performed using Stata 10.0. RESULTS Number of Hospitals in the Analysis We determined that 3,030 hospitals met the criteria for the HVBP program. A total of 103 low-volume hospitals were dropped from the analysis because they either did not report, or reported fewer than 10 cases, for every ED measure. The ﬁnal sample for our analysis related to achievement included 2,927 hospitals. Because 85 of those hospitals did not report enough cases in the baseline period to receive improvement scores, our analyses related to improvement included 2,842 hospitals. Compared to all general medical and surgical hospitals in the United States, the hospitals in the analysis included fewer small hospitals. Correlations and Frequencies There was a positive, moderate correlation between the ED and inpatient achievement scores (Figure 1). The correlation coefﬁcient was 0.50 (95% conﬁdence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.53). Of the 731 hospitals that scored in the top quartile for ED achievement, 382 (52.3%) scored within the top quartile for inpatient achievement (Table 2). All other correlations were weak (0.16 or less). Only 198 hospitals (6.7%) scored in the top quartile for achievement on both the ED and patient experience areas. Similarly, there was little overlap on high performance for improvement. Of the 678 hospitals that scored in the top quartile for ED improvement, only 254 (37%) scored in the top quartile for inpatient improvement and only 187 (28%) scored in the top quartile for patient experience improvement. Only 96 hospitals (3.3%) scored in the top quartile across all three 554 McHugh et al. • ED QUALITY AND HOSPITAL QUALITY achievement dimensions, and only 73 (2.6%) scored in the top quartile for all three domains of improvement. Inpatient Quality Dimension Score A. ED and Inpatient Dimension Scores – Achievement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 DISCUSSION 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ED Quality Dimension B. Inpatient and Patient Experience Dimension Scores – Achievement Patient Experience Quality Dimension Score 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 90 100 Inpatient Quality Dimension Score Patient Experience Quality Dimension Score C. ED and Patient Experience Dimension Scores – Achievement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ED Quality Dimension Score Inpatient Quality Dimension Score on Scor D. ED and Inpatient Dimension Scores – Improvement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ED Quality Dimension Score 80 90 100 Patient Experience Quality Dimension Score E. Inpatient and Patient Experience Dimension Scores – Improvement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Inpatient Quality Dimension Score Patient Experience Quality Dimension Score F. ED and Patient Experience Dimension Scores – Improvement 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 ED Quality Dimension Score Figure 1. Scatterplots for the ED, inpatient, and patient experience quality dimensions, achievement, and improvement scores Our investigation of hospital performance using measures included in Medicare’s new HVBP program revealed a positive, moderate correlation for achievement on the ED and inpatient measures. One would generally expect to see a strong positive relationship between ED and inpatient performance, as hospital quality is ultimately overseen by a single hospital board of directors, and resources that enhance quality (e.g., electronic health records) are often consistently available (or unavailable) across departments. However, our ﬁndings also show a weak relationship between achievement on the ED and patient experience measures. These ﬁndings are consistent with other studies showing a weak relationship between process of care and patient experience measures.8,15 This is the ﬁrst study to investigate whether improvement on the ED quality domain is related to improvement on other quality domains. We found that the three quality domains do not necessarily improve in tandem. There are several implications of our ﬁndings for policy-makers, hospital leaders, and consumers. First, for policy-makers, our results lend support to the notion that value-based purchasing programs should include measures that represent multiple dimensions of performance. If ED measures were excluded from Medicare’s Hospital Inpatient VBP program, a different group of hospitals would have achieved the highest relative performance (and therefore the highest rewards). Although hospitals report that submitting multiple quality measures can be burdensome,2 our ﬁndings indicate that including measures from multiple dimensions provides a more complete picture of hospital quality. Second, few hospitals achieve high performance across the three quality dimensions, and almost half of hospitals did not qualify as top performers in any dimension. This highlights a broad opportunity for improvement. Hospital and department leaders should review their scores on the measures included in the HVBP program, identify the dimensions of performance that are weakest, and focus attention in those areas, with the goal of improvement. Further, our ﬁndings have implications for hospital boards, who are ultimately responsible for hospital quality.16,17 Given that quality is one of many topics that boards discuss during their meetings,18 they may be inclined to review few measures. Our results suggest that they should request information on quality across departments and consider the consistency of quality across the organization. Our ﬁndings also have important implications for consumers. Our results suggest that the level of quality a consumer will encounter during an ED-initiated hospital stay is likely to vary during that single stay. While quality of care may be high in the ED, this will not necessarily be consistent across the inpatient stay and measures of patient experience. Further, the variation in achievement across the three quality domains illustrates how difﬁcult it may be for consumers to choose a hospital based on publicly available quality data. Assuming a Top quartile (n = 697) Second quartile (n = 735) Third quartile (n = 761) Bottom quartile (n = 734) Top quartile (n = 731) Second quartile (n = 735) Third quartile (n = 716) Bottom quartile (n = 745) Patient experience quality dimension 215 187 126 98 66 164 139 185 183 196 182 184 198 382 179 Second Quartile (n = 710) 198 Top Quartile (n = 731) Top quartile (n = 785) Second quartile (n = 713) Third quartile (n = 685) Bottom quartile (n = 659) Top quartile (n = 708) Second quartile (n = 679) Third quartile (n = 734) Bottom quartile (n = 721) Patient experience quality dimension Inpatient quality dimension Improvement Domain 217 221 195 98 216 208 168 139 Third Quartile (n = 7313) 293 207 163 140 136 169 152 148 196 149 165 165 190 254 213 185 185 160 150 165 176 175 164 Third Quartile (n = 680) ED Quality Dimension Second Quartile (n = 743) 187 Top Quartile (n = 678) B. Distribution of Hospitals, by Quality Domain and Improvement Quartile Inpatient quality dimension Achievement Domain ED Quality Dimension Table 2 A. Distribution of Hospitals, by Quality Domain and Achievement Quartile 237 202 163 139 173 164 183 221 Bottom Quartile (n = 741) 336 210 140 69 215 174 185 181 Bottom Quartile (n = 755) 162 143 199 204 Top Quartile (n = 731) 185 183 175 188 Top Quartile (n = 731) 175 191 195 155 Third Quartile (n = 716) 151 186 172 170 Second Quartile (n = 735) 174 168 167 225 Third Quartile (n = 716) Inpatient Quality Dimension 153 204 189 189 Second Quartile (n = 735) Inpatient Quality Dimension 172 188 175 186 Bottom Quartile (n = 745) 221 183 176 165 Bottom Quartile (n = 745) ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE • May 2014, Vol. 21, No. 5 • www.aemj.org 555 556 consumer is willing to review quality scores, he or she may have difﬁculty deciding between hospitals that have high patient experience scores versus those with high clinical quality scores. Our results raise an important question about why hospitals perform strongly (or greatly improve) on one quality domain, but not in others. In this effort, we did not explore the link between organizational culture or resources and performance; however, the absence of a strong correlation among the measures calls into question the notion that a culture of excellence can permeate through an organization, raising performance in all areas.6,19 Instead, targeted approaches in each quality domain may be necessary. Speciﬁcally, the ED may require separate and tailored quality initiatives to earn the highest quality improvement or achievement. This is an important topic for future research. Another possible explanation for the absence of a strong correlation is that our implicit assumption about hospital leaders’ attention to the three dimensions may be incorrect. Hospital leaders may be focused on aspects of quality that they believe are more meaningful (e.g., resuscitation performance, hospital-acquired conditions) than the measures included in the HVBP program. Importantly, the Institute of Medicine deﬁned six domains of quality, and the measures currently included in the HVBP program do not encompass all six domains.20 Instead, the program measures provide insight only into selected aspects of performance. LIMITATIONS Our ﬁndings should be viewed in light of several limitations. First, as noted above, we used a 12-month period rather than a 9-month period of performance. Doing so likely resulted in the inclusion of certain small hospitals that would not have met the reporting criteria sample size (at least four measures with 10 eligible cases) for the HVBP program had we used a 9-month reporting period. Second, in the 2011 Federal Register ﬁnal rule for the HVBP program, several commenters expressed concern that 10 eligible cases per clinical process measure (the minimum threshold used by CMS and in this analysis) may be insufﬁcient to produce reliable measure scores. CMS maintains that an independent analysis found that 10 cases was sufﬁcient to produce reliable scores.2 Still, it is possible that some of our estimates in this analysis were unstable. Third, the four ED-related process of care measures were selected because of their relevance to care provided in the ED.3 However, not all cases for a particular measure represent care provided in the ED. For example, initial antibiotic selection (PN-6) is sometimes performed in an inpatient unit rather than the ED. That may explain the larger correlation between the ED and inpatient measures.21 Using the Hospital Compare data, there was no way for us to limit our analysis to patients who received care in the ED. CONCLUSIONS With the exception of a moderate positive relationship between performance on the ED and inpatient quality McHugh et al. • ED QUALITY AND HOSPITAL QUALITY domains, we found little consistency between achievement and improvement across the three quality domains included in Medicare’s new Hospital Valuebased Purchasing program. Most hospitals that demonstrated high achievement or improvement in one quality domain did not demonstrate high achievement or improvement in the other domains. Our ﬁndings suggest that 1) there are broad opportunities for hospitals to improve, 2) patients may not experience consistent quality levels throughout their hospital visit, 3) quality improvement interventions may need to be tailored speciﬁcally to the department, and 4) consumers and policy makers may not be able to draw conclusions on overall facility quality based on information about one domain. References 1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Report to Congress: Plan to Implement a Medicare Hospital Value-based Purchasing Program. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/downloads/Hospital VBPPlanRTCFINALSUBMITTED2007.pdf. Accessed Feb 11, 2014. 2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Value-based Purchasing Program. Federal Register, 2011. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-05-06/ pdf/2011-10568.pdf. Accessed Feb 11, 2014. 3. Cheung D, Wiler JL, Newell R, Brenner J. The State of Emergency Medicine Quality Measures. ACEP News. Available at: http://www.acep.org/Content. aspx?id=82861. Accessed Feb 11, 2014. 4. Newell R, Slesinger T, Cheung D, et al. Emergency medicine quality measures. ACEP News. August 20, 2012. 5. American College of Emergency Physicians. Value Based Emergency Care (VBEC) Task Force. Report of the Value Based Emergency Care (VBEC) Task Force Quality and Performance – Strategic Plan. Available at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct= j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acep.org%2Fcontent. aspx%3Fid%3D46846&ei=N0CEUuCtGMeU2wXC3IGYBQ&usg=AFQjCNEvM5QCI8AujpQANuipNxd7nz Bq0A&sig2=w6biG0dAcKAfz4jZYsDyUg&bvm=bv. 56343320,d.b2I. Accessed Feb 11, 2014. 6. Shwartz M, Cohen AB, Restuccia JD, et al. How well can we identify the high-performing hospital? Med Care Res Rev 2010;68:290–310. 7. Wilson IB, Landon BE, Marsden PV, et al. Correlations among measures of quality in HIV care in the United States: cross sectional study. BMJ 2007;335:1085. 8. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients’ perception of hospital care in the United States. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1921–31. 9. Lehrman WG, Elliott MN, Goldstein E, et al. Characteristics of hospitals demonstrating superior performance in patient experience and clinical process measures of care. Med Care Res Rev 2010;67: 38–55. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE • May 2014, Vol. 21, No. 5 • www.aemj.org 10. Rosenthal MB, Landrum MB, Meara E, et al. Using performance data to identify preferred hospitals. Health Serv Res 2007;42:2109–19. 11. McHugh M, Neimeyer J, Powell E, et al. An early look at performance on the emergency care measures included in Medicare’s hospital inpatient value-based purchasing program. Ann Emerg Med 2013;61:616–23. 12. Pines JM, Localio AR, Hollander JE, et al. The impact of emergency department crowding measures on time to antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50:510–6. 13. Atzema CL, Austin PC, Tu JV, Schull MJ. Emergency department triage of acute myocardial infarction patients and the effect on outcomes. Ann Emerg Med 2009;53:736–45. 14. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. APU Recipients: Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program. Available at: http://www.qualitynet.org/ dcs/ContentServer?cid=1154977996543&pagename= QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier3&c=Page. Accessed Feb 11, 2014. 557 15. Young GJ, Meterko M, Desai KR. Patient satisfaction with hospital care: effects of demographic and institutional characteristics. Med Care 2000;38:325– 34. 16. Conway J. Getting boards on board: engaging governing boards in quality and safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008;34:214–20. 17. Murphy S, Mullaney A. The New Age of Accountability: Board Education and Certiﬁcation, Peer Review, Director Credentialing and Quality. Chicago, IL: Center for Healthcare Governance, 2010. 18. Jha A, Epstein A. Hospital governance and the quality of care. Health Aff 2010;29:182–7. 19. Curry LA, Spatz E, Cherlin E, et al. What distinguishes top-performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? Ann Intern Med 2011;154:384–90. 20. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001. 21. Friedberg M, Mehrotra A, Linder J. Reporting hospitals’ antibiotic timing in pneumonia: adverse consequences for patients? Am J Manag Care 2009;15:137–44.
Purchase answer to see full attachment