The Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots Web Site Methods
The Maine Quality Forum (MQF) created the Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots Web site to make
information on the quality of care in Maine hospitals easily available to users and providers of
health care. The Web site presents simple meters and tables on how hospitals perform in caring for
patients with specific clinical conditions. This information can assist you in making choices about hospital care.
The information is contained in a large number of measures of hospital quality. The typical
measure describes a “best clinical practice” and percent of patients receiving that practice.
For example, of patients admitted to a hospital with a heart attack, the percent who receive
aspirin at admission is a “best practice” measure for heart attack. One challenge of the
information is the overwhelming number of measures that are available so the Web site also combines
several measures into one summary measure.
This document explains the background data and methods used to create the
Web site information. It describes:
This is the first release of the Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots. It includes
many ideas that were collected through public forums, as well as insights offered by
various advisors to the MQF.
Two companies helped the MQF to develop this Web site: Thomson Reuters (formerly
Thomson Healthcare) and Rapid Application Development, Corporation (RADCorp). This Web site
modifies the State Snapshots from the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR),
developed by Thomson Reuters and RADCorp for the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality (http://statesnapshots.ahrq.gov/snaps07/index.jsp).
The NHQR State Snapshots offer a visual summary of the quality of health care
for hospital and other settings at the State level. The Maine Hospital
Quality Snapshots present an overview of quality at the hospital level.
Back to top
The summary measures you will see in this document combine individual measures of quality of care.
Hospitals have been voluntarily reporting this information to state-wide organizations, known as
Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs). The QIOs are funded mainly by the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Those QIO/CMS
measures are reported individually by hospital on the CMS Hospital Compare Web site (http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov).
The data for the Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots Web site were developed by the Maine Quality
Forum. They have been collected and provided by the Maine Health Data Organization.
In general, individual measures are the proportion of a hospital’s patients
with a specific clinical condition that receive a “best practice” in the
hospital for a given condition. That best practice is based on evidence
that the process improves patient outcomes (National
Quality Forum, 2002) 1 .
The Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots combine individual best-practice
measures into clinical summary measures. Hospital Compare measures were
grouped into six clinical summary measures. The clinical areas are:
- Heart Disease
- Heart Attack
- Heart Failure
- Pneumonia Care
- Preventing Infections in General Surgery
- Preventing Infections in Cardiac/Vascular Surgery
How do these summary measures work, and why are they useful? A summary measure
on the Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots is the proportion of all of
the hospital’s opportunities to provide “best practice” care that the hospital
achieved in a given clinical area. For example, if a patient came to the hospital
with a heart attack, the hospital might have eight opportunities (eight
individual heart-attack-related quality measures) to provide the best care for
that patient. The hospital would receive credit for each best practice
opportunity relevant to a patient, if the best practice was delivered. (A different
approach would credit the hospital for achieving best practice only if
all of the best practices were given when relevant to the patient.
In this approach, best practices are viewed as an “all-or-nothing” concept and
would thus be counted one time, rather than eight times. This approach would
result in lower, more conservative, estimates of achieved best practice and is the
approach used for the Healthcare Associated Infection Processes of Care Measures).
Appendix Table A.1 lists all measures considered for the Web site. Appendix
Table A.2 shows which individual clinical measures are combined into each
summary measure.
For the clinical area summary measures, two types of tools were created
to evaluate hospitals:
- Proportion of opportunities,
in which a best practice that was performed in each hospital
is summarized on a “meter”; and
- Hospital
performance, rated as “outstanding,” “average,” or “needs improvement”
in the clinical area, is noted in a text box below the meter.
These two evaluation tools are summarized in the section that follows.
Back to top
Proportion of Opportunities. The proportion of opportunities
where a best practice was performed across relevant measures in a
clinical area was calculated as the sum of all the best practices
performed, divided by the sum of all the opportunities for best
practices. Those proportions are marked on a “meter” (Figure 1),
which displays:
- The possible proportions of opportunities that could be achieved, ranging from 0% to 100%
- A “solid black arrow” on the meter for the hospital’s proportion of opportunities actually achieved for the current year
- A "dashed black arrow" on the meter for the hospital's proportion of opportunities actually achieved for the previous year
- A “yellow area” behind the arrow for the spread of results (proportions of
opportunities achieved) across all hospitals in the comparison group for the current year
- The right-most side of the yellow (closest to 100%) shows the performance
for the best hospital in the comparison group
- The left-most side of the yellow area (closest to 0%) shows the performance
for the worst hospital in the comparison group.
Figure 1
Back to top
Hospital Performance.
The arrows on the meter tell you how often the hospital applied best practices for
the current and previous years. But they do not tell you whether that performance
should be considered “outstanding,” “average,” or “needing improvement.” The
discussion below describes a way to make that judgment. For a technical description,
please go to Regression Analysis in Technical Terms.
A statistical test was used to identify the lower and higher performers from the middle
or average group. A standard technique, known as regression analysis, was used. This
technique allows us to compare one hospital’s performance on all individual measures
in a clinical area to all hospitals’ performance on the same measures. Regressions
were estimated for each clinical area. The results of the regression estimated the
average effect across all the measures of each hospital’s difference from the “average
of all hospitals.” The regression results also provided a statistical test of that
difference. The performance rankings of hospitals were determined in the following ways:
- If the estimate was positive (that is, the hospital was better than the average
of hospitals) and the test indicated statistical significance (that is, the
estimate of the difference only has a 1 percent likelihood of being due to chance error),
then the hospital was considered better than average or “outstanding.”
- If the estimate was negative (that is, the hospital was worse than the average)
and the test indicated statistical significance, then the hospital was
considered worse than average or “needing improvement.”
- If the estimate was greater than, equal to, or less than the average, but
did not have statistical significance, then the hospital was considered “average.”
The result of this analysis for the current year is described in a text box on the
Web page below each summary “meter.” The text box (example below) says whether the
hospital is “outstanding,” “average,” or “needs improvement” in terms of its performance
in the clinical area, as compared to other hospitals.
For the current
year <Hospital> is
an <Outstanding>
Performer in <Heart
Failure Care>
Back to top
Regression Analysis in Technical Terms.
A multilevel logistic regression was estimated for each clinical area
(Snijders
and Bosker, 1999)2.
First-level measures were nested within hospitals at the second level. For each regression,
the dependent variable was the log-odds of success (measured as the percentage of patients
that received the best practice) for each measure within each clinical area. The
regression was adjusted for each of the individual measures within each clinical area. That
is, the independent variables were indicators (0, 1), one for each measure, within the
clinical area. For example, the regression for heart attack adjusted for each of the
individual heart attack measures (e.g., giving the patient aspirin at arrival, giving
a beta blocker at arrival, etc.).
The logistic regressions estimated each hospital’s deviation from the average hospital
by combining the information on measure-specific deviations across all of the measures
in each clinical area. In other words, it estimated the average difference between the
hospital’s success rate and the "average” of all hospitals’ success rates. Please note
that each hospital's distance from the average is based on the measures that were not
missing for that hospital. Thus, these results assume that each hospital's average
deviation would have been the same for missing measures as it was for its non-missing
measures. A p-value of <0.01 was used to gauge statistical significance
of the results.
Back to top
Individual Nursing Measures
Maine’s hospitals submit individual nursing-sensitive measures to the Maine Health
Data Organization, and this organization provides them for the Web site.
The individual nursing measures are nursing-related patient outcomes and nursing
availability and experience. The relationship between nursing availability and
experience and patient outcomes has been documented in past research studies (Kane
et al., 2007)3.
The Maine Hospital Quality Snapshots report the nursing measures separately,
rather than combining them into summary measures. Because the individual nursing
measures reflect different concepts, they are difficult to interpret when combined.
Twelve nursing measures were collected by the hospitals. Two additional measures
were calculated from those:
- NSPC 2b:
Number of inpatient falls without injury per 1000 patient days =
NSPC 2 (Inpatient falls per 1000 patient days)
– NSPC 3 (Inpatient falls with injury per 1000 patient days)
- NSSC 7c:
(Staff turnover) =
[NSSC 7a (RN + APN voluntary separations)
+ NSSC 7b (LVN+LPN+UAP voluntary separations)]
/ Total number of staff at beginning of period
where, RN = registered nurse, APN = advanced practice nurse;
LVN = licensed vocational nurse; LPN = licensed practical nurse;
UAP = unlicensed assistive personnel.
In all, fourteen measures relate to nursing care on the MQF Web site.
Appendix Table A.3 shows how the 14 measures are organized by Nursing Care
Outcomes and Nursing Availability and Experience. All 14 measures are in
downloadable tables on the Web site.
Five measures relate either to adverse events that should be low
with good nursing practices such as pressure ulcers and patient falls
(with or without injury) or relate to practices that should be rare
during good nursing care (use of patient restraints). Nine measures relate
to nursing availability and experience: RN, LPN, UAP and contract nursing
hours as a percent of total nursing hours, RN hours and total nursing
hours per patient day, and nursing turnover rate.
The nursing-related tables on the Web pages include, for each measure, the hospital’s
value and the hospital peer group value for two time periods: the most recent
four quarters (current year) and the previous four quarters (previous year).
Back to top
Individual Healthcare Associated Infection Measures
Healthcare associated infection measures can be used to evaluate how well hospitals
prevent infections in their facilities. Maine's hospitals submit measures of actual infection rates
(e.g. central line associated bloodstream infections) and measures showing their ability
to consistently implement groups (or bundles) of evidence-based practices shown to prevent infections.
These measures are reported to the Maine Health Data Organization which provides them for
the Maine Quality Forum Web site.
Preventing Infections Associated with Central Lines
Central line associated bloodstream infections rates are a measurement of how effectively
hospitals prevent infections in patients with catheters inserted in larger blood vessels
to provide long term access to the bloodstream (used for giving medications and fluids,
for withdrawing blood, or for monitoring their condition). Any disruption of the skin
makes infection with bacteria or fungi possible. Rates are reported as the number of
infections divided by the number of days that patients had central lines inserted
multiplied by 1000 (per 1000 central line days). A central line day is each day
that any patient has a central line in place.
Preventing Infections - Processes of Care Measures
Adherence to infection prevention practices can also be measured by a hospital's
ability to implement "best practice" processes of care. For example, if a hospitalized
patient had a central line catheter inserted, the hospital might have five
opportunities (five individual central line infection prevention quality
measures) to prevent infections in that patient (Berenholtz et al, 20044).
For these measures, the hospital will receive credit for achieving the best
practice only if all of the best practices were given when relevant to
the patient. In this approach, best practices are viewed as an "all-or-nothing"
concept and would thus be counted one time, rather than five times.
Process of care measures are also reported on hospital efforts to prevent
ventilator associated pneumonia in patients on mechanical ventilation
(assistance for breathing) (
Drakulovic et al, 19995 and Kress
et al, 20006).
Back to top
A Consistency of Performance Indicator
To provide an overall view of the hospital’s performance across clinical areas
and nursing, a measure called “consistency of performance” was developed. This
measure indicates how often (on what percent of measures) a hospital appears
among the following tiers of performance of Maine general acute care hospitals:
- Best: Top 10 percent of hospitals
- Like most other hospitals: Middle 80 percent of hospitals
- Worst: Bottom 10 percent of hospitals.
Ten individual measures (8 clinical and 2 nursing) were selected for this view.
They were chosen because they were important measures available for all
36 general acute care hospitals:
| Measure |
Description |
| AMI-1 |
Aspirin at arrival for heart attack |
| AMI-5 |
Beta blocker prescribed at discharge for heart attack |
| HF-2 |
Evaluation of left ventricular function for heart failure |
| HF-3 |
ACEI or ARB at discharge for heart failure with LVSD |
| PN-2 |
Pneumococcal vaccination or screen |
| PN-5c |
Antibiotics for pneumonia within 6 hours of arrival – all patients |
| SCIP-1a |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to any surgery |
| SCIP-3a |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours after any surgery |
| NSPC-2 |
Number of inpatient falls per 1000 inpatient days |
| NSSC-7c |
Staff turnover |
The pie chart below shows the distribution of the percent of a hospital’s
measures in the three tiers of performance.
Back to top
Hospital Comparison Groups
All summary measures and individual nursing measures are presented both for
the hospital and for at least one comparison group. The comparison groups
differ by type of measure:
- Summary measures are presented by three hospital comparison groups:
- All Maine hospitals—available from the right navigation bar
- Relevant Maine hospital peer group,
defined by the Maine Hospital Association available from the right navigation bar
- All U.S. hospitals collecting the measure—available in tables linked to relevant
meters; this group offers a national benchmark from Hospital Compare
(http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov).
- Nursing Measures are presented by one hospital comparison group:
- Healthcare Associated Infection Measures are presented by one hospital
comparison group:
- Relevant Maine hospital peer group - available in tables on Web page.
Maine Hospital Peer Groups
The peer groups were established by the Maine Hospital Association (MHA). The
MHA considers these peer groupings to be similar hospitals.
| Peer Group |
|
Hospital |
Location |
Beds |
| Peer Group A |
|
4 Hospitals |
| |
|
Central Maine Medical Center |
Lewiston |
250 |
| |
|
Eastern Maine Medical Center |
Bangor |
411 |
| |
|
MaineGeneral Medical Center |
Augusta/Waterville |
304 |
| |
|
Maine Medical Center |
Portland |
606 |
| Peer Group B |
|
8 Hospitals |
| |
|
Aroostook Medical Center |
Presque Isle |
89 |
| |
|
Mercy Hospital |
Portland |
230 |
| |
|
Mid Coast Hospital |
Brunswick |
104 |
| |
|
Penobscot Bay Medical Center |
Rockport |
109 |
| |
|
Southern Maine Medical Center |
Biddeford |
150 |
| |
|
St. Joseph Hospital |
Bangor |
112 |
| |
|
St. Mary's Regional Medical Center |
Lewiston |
233 |
| |
|
York Hospital |
York |
79 |
| Peer Group C |
|
4 Hospitals |
| |
|
Cary Medical Center |
Caribou |
65 |
| |
* |
Franklin Memorial Hospital |
Farmington |
70 |
| |
|
Goodall Hospital |
Sanford |
53 |
| |
* |
Maine Coast Memorial Hospital |
Ellsworth |
64 |
| Peer Group D |
|
5 Hospitals |
| |
|
Inland Hospital |
Waterville |
48 |
| |
* |
Miles Memorial Hospital |
Damariscotta |
38 |
| |
|
Northern Maine Medical Center |
Fort Kent |
49 |
| |
|
Parkview Adventist Medical Center |
Brunswick |
55 |
| |
* |
Stephens Memorial Hospital |
Norway |
50 |
| Peer Group E |
|
15 Hospitals (Critical Access Hospitals) |
| |
|
Blue Hill Memorial Hospital |
Blue Hill |
25 |
| |
|
Bridgton Hospital |
Bridgton |
25 |
| |
|
Calais Regional Hospital |
Calais |
25 |
| |
|
Charles A. Dean Memorial Hospital |
Greenville |
14 |
| |
|
Down East Community Hospital |
Machias |
25 |
| |
|
Houlton Regional Hospital |
Houlton |
25 |
| |
|
Mayo Regional Hospital |
Dover-Foxcroft |
25 |
| |
|
Millinocket Regional Hospital |
Millinocket |
25 |
| |
|
Mount Desert Island Hospital |
Bar Harbor |
25 |
| |
|
Penobscot Valley Hospital |
Lincoln |
25 |
| |
|
Redington-Fairview General Hospital |
Skowhegan |
25 |
| |
|
Rumford Hospital |
Rumford |
25 |
| |
|
St. Andrews Hospital |
Boothbay Harbor |
25 |
| |
|
Sebasticook Valley Hospital |
Pittsfield |
25 |
| |
|
Waldo County General Hospital |
Belfast |
25 |
| Peer Group F |
|
4 Hospitals (Private and State Psychiatric) |
| |
|
Acadia Hospital |
Bangor |
100 |
| |
|
Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Center |
Bangor |
100 |
| |
|
Riverview Psychiatric Center |
Augusta |
92 |
| |
|
Spring Harbor Hospital |
Westbrook |
100 |
| Peer Group G |
|
1 Hospital (Rehabilitation) |
| |
|
New England Rehabilitation Hospital |
Portland |
100 |
* Qualified Swing Bed Hospital
Back to top
Appendix A: List of Individual and Summary Measures for Clinical Areas and Nursing
Table A.1. Individual Measures of Hospital Quality of Care for the MQF Web Site
| MQF Measure Acronym |
Short Name |
Description |
| AMI-1 |
Aspirin at arrival for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients
without aspirin contraindications who received aspirin within
24 hours before or after hospital arrival.
|
| AMI-2 |
Aspirin at discharge for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients
without aspirin contraindications who are prescribed aspirin
at hospital discharge.
|
| AMI-3 |
ACEI or ARB at discharge for heart attack with LVSD |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients
with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and without
contraindications who are prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme
inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) at discharge.
|
| AMI-4 |
Smoking cessation advice for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients with
a history of smoking cigarettes (in last year) who are given smoking
cessation advice or counseling during hospital stay.
|
| AMI-5 |
Beta blocker at discharge for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients
without beta blocker contraindications who are prescribed a
beta blocker at hospital discharge.
|
| AMI-6 |
Beta blocker at arrival for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart
attack) patients without beta blocker contraindications who
received a beta blocker within 24 hours after hospital arrival.
|
| AMI-7a |
Thrombolytics at arrival for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart
attack) patients who received thrombolytic therapy (for
discharges prior to April 1, 2006) or fibrinolytic therapy
(for discharges as of April 1, 2006) within 30 minutes or
less of arrival at hospital.
|
| AMI-8a |
Percutaneous coronary intervention at arrival for heart attack |
Percent of acute myocardial infarction (heart
attack) patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention
(PCI) within 120 minutes or less of arrival at hospital (for
discharges prior to July 1, 2006) or 90 minutes or less of
arrival at hospital (for discharges as of July 1, 2006).
|
| HF-1 |
Discharge instructions for heart failure |
Percent of heart failure patients discharged
home with written instructions or educational material given
to patient or caregiver at discharge or during the hospital
stay, addressing all of the following: activity level, diet,
discharge medications, follow-up appointment, weight monitoring,
and what to do if symptoms worsen.
|
| HF-2 |
Evaluation of left ventricular function for heart failure |
Percent of heart failure patients with documentation
in the hospital record that left ventricular function (LVF)
was evaluated before arrival, during hospitalization, or is
planned after discharge.
|
| HF-3 |
ACEI or ARB at discharge for heart failure with LVSD |
Percent of heart failure patients with left
ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and without both
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and
angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) contraindications who
are prescribed an ACEI or ARB at hospital discharge.
|
| HF-4 |
Smoking cessation advice for heart failure |
Percent of heart failure patients with a
history of smoking cigarettes (in last year) who are given
smoking cessation advice or counseling during hospital stay.
|
| PN-1 |
Oxygenation assessment for pneumonia |
Percent of pneumonia patients who had an
assessment of arterial oxygenation by arterial blood gas
measurement or pulse oximetry within 24 hours prior to or
after arrival at the hospital.
|
| PN-2 |
Pneumococcal vaccination or screen |
Percent of pneumonia patients 65 or older
who were screened for pneumococcal vaccine status and were
administered the vaccine prior to discharge, if indicated.
|
| PN-4 |
Smoking cessation advice for pneumonia |
Percent of pneumonia patients with a history
of smoking cigarettes (in last year) who are given smoking
cessation advice or counseling during hospital stay.
|
| PN-5b |
Antibiotics for pneumonia within 4 hours of arrival - All patients |
Percent of pneumonia patients who received their first
dose of antibiotics within 4 hours after arrival at hospital (for discharges
prior to April 1, 2008).
|
| PN-5c |
Antibiotics for pneumonia within 6 hours of arrival - All patients (replaces
PN-5b) |
Percent of pneumonia patients who received their first
dose of antibiotics within 6 hours after arrival at hospital (for discharges
beginning April 1, 2008).
|
| PN-6 |
Appropriate antibiotics for pneumonia within 24 hours of
arrival - All patients |
Percent of immunocompetent patients with community-acquired
pneumonia who received initial antibiotic regimen during the first
24 hours that is consistent with current guidelines.
|
| PN-6a |
Appropriate antibiotics for pneumonia within 24 hours of arrival - ICU patients |
Percent of immunocompetent ICU patients with
community-acquired pneumonia who received initial antibiotic
regimen during the first 24 hours that is consistent with
current guidelines.
|
| PN-6b |
Appropriate antibiotics for pneumonia within 24 hours of arrival - non-ICU patients |
Percent of immunocompetent non-ICU patients with
community-acquired pneumonia who received initial antibiotic regimen
during the first 24 hours that is consistent with current guidelines.
|
| PN-7 |
Flu vaccination or screen for pneumonia |
Percent of pneumonia patients age 50 and older, hospitalized
any time between October and February, who were screened for flu vaccine
status and vaccinated prior to discharge, if indicated.
|
| SCIP-1a |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to any surgery |
Percent of seven types of surgical patients that received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1b |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to CABG surgery |
Percent of CABG surgery patients that received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1c |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to other cardiac surgery |
Percent of other cardiac surgery patients that received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1d |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to hip arthroplasty |
Percent of hip arthroplasty patients that received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1e |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to knee arthroplasty |
Percent of knee arthroplasty patients that received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1f |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to colon surgery |
Percent of colon surgery patients that received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1g |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to hysterectomy |
Percent of hysterectomy patients who received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-1h |
Antibiotic within 1 hour prior to vascular surgery |
Percent of vascular surgery patients who received
prophylactic antibiotic within one hour prior to surgical incision.
|
| SCIP-2a |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for all surgery |
Percent of seven types of surgical patients who
received prophylactic antibiotics consistent with current guidelines
for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2b |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for CABG surgery |
Percent of CABG surgical patients who received
prophylactic antibiotic consistent with current guidelines for
specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2c |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for other cardiac surgery |
Percent of other cardiac surgery patients who received
prophylactic antibiotic consistent with current guidelines for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2d |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for hip arthroplasty |
Percent of hip arthroplasty surgical patients who received
prophylactic antibiotic consistent with current guidelines for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2e |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for knee arthroplasty |
Percent of knee arthroplasty surgical patients who received
prophylactic antibiotic consistent with current guidelines for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2f |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for colon surgery |
Percent of colon surgery patients who received prophylactic
antibiotic consistent with current guideline for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2g |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for hysterectomy |
Percent of hysterectomy patients who received prophylactic
antibiotic consistent with current guidelines for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-2h |
Antibiotic guideline compliance for vascular surgery |
Percent of vascular surgery patients who received prophylactic
antibiotic consistent with current guidelines for specific procedure.
|
| SCIP-3a |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours after any surgery |
Percent of seven types of surgical patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time.
|
| SCIP-3b |
Antibiotics discontinued soon after CABG surgery |
Percent of CABG surgery patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time
(for discharges prior to January 1, 2006) and within 48 hours after
surgery end time (for discharges as of January 1, 2006).
|
| SCIP-3c |
Antibiotics discontinued soon after other cardiac surgery |
Percent of other cardiac surgery patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time (for
discharges prior to January 1, 2006) and within 48 hours after surgery end
time (for discharges as of January 1, 2006).
|
| SCIP-3d |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours of hip arthroplasty |
Percent of hip arthroplasty patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time.
|
| SCIP-3e |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours of knee arthroplasty |
Percent of knee arthroplasty patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time.
|
| SCIP-3f |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours of colon surgery |
Percent of colon surgery patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time.
|
| SCIP-3g |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours of hysterectomy |
Percent of hysterectomy patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time.
|
| SCIP-3h |
Antibiotics discontinued within 24 hours of vascular surgery |
Percent of vascular surgery patients whose prophylactic
antibiotics were discontinued within 24 hours after surgery end time.
|
| SCIP-4 |
Controlled post-operative serum glucose |
Percent of cardiac surgery patients with controlled 6 AM
post-operative serum glucose.
|
| SCIP-6 |
Appropriate hair removal |
Rate of surgery patients with appropriate hair removal.
|
| SCIP-10 |
Postoperative normothermia |
Surgery Patients with Perioperative Temperature Management.
|
| SCIP-VTE-1 |
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis ordered |
Rate of surgery patients with recommended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis ordered.
|
| SCIP-VTE-2 |
Timely initiation and discontinuation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis |
Rate of surgery patients who received appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis within
24 hours prior to surgery to 24 hours after surgery.
|
| HAI-1 |
CLABSI rate for ICU patients |
Central-line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI)
rate per 1,000 central-line catheter days, for ICU patients.
|
| HAI-2 |
CLABSI rate for ICU neonates |
Central-line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI)
rate per 1,000 central-line catheter days, for ICU neonates.
|
| HAI-3 |
Documented central line bundle compliance to prevent infection in ICUs |
Percent of ICU patients with central line catheters for
whom all five of "central line bundle" elements are documented daily
(except where element is contraindicated):
1. Hand hygiene
2. Maximal barrier precautions
3. Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis
4. Optimal catheter site selection, with subclavian vein as
the preferred site for non-tunneled catheters
5. Daily review of line necessity, with prompt removal of
unnecessary lines
|
| HAI-4 |
Documented central line bundle compliance to prevent infection in surgical suites |
Percent of patients in pre-operative areas, operating rooms,
and recovery areas with central line catheters for whom the four insertion related elements of
"central line bundle" compliance are documented (except where element is
contraindicated):
1. Hand hygiene
2. Maximal barrier precautions
3. Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis
4. Optimal catheter site selection, with subclavian vein as the
preferred site for non-tunneled catheters
|
| HAI-5 |
Documented ventilator bundle compliance to prevent pneumonia in ICUs |
Percent of patients on ventilators in ICUs for whom
"ventilator bundle" compliance is documented on all four evidence-based
interventions (except where element is contraindicated):
1. Elevation of the head of the bed to between 30 and 45 degrees
2. Daily “sedative interruption” and daily assessment of readiness to extubate
3. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) prophylaxis
4. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis
|
| NSPC – 1 |
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcer rate |
Percent of patients who have a hospital-acquired
pressure ulcer (stage1 or greater prior to July 1, 2006; stage 2
or greater thereafter) on day of prevalence study.
|
| NSPC – 2 |
Inpatient Falls Rate |
Number of inpatient falls per 1000 inpatient days. |
| NSPC – 2b |
Inpatient Falls without Injury Rate |
Number of inpatient falls without injury per 1000 inpatient days. |
| NSPC – 3 |
Inpatient Falls with Injury Rate |
Number of inpatient falls with injuries per 1000 inpatient days. |
| NSPC – 4 |
Use of physical restraints |
Percent of patients who have a vest or limb restraint on day of prevalence study. |
| NSSC – 1 |
RN to total nursing hours |
Percent of registered nurse (RN) care hours to total nursing care hours. |
| NSSC – 2 |
LVN+LPN to total nursing hours |
Percent of license vocational nurse/license practical
nurse (LVN/LPN) care hours to total nursing care hours.
|
| NSSC – 3 |
UAP to total nursing hours |
Percent of unlicensed assistive personnel (UAP) care hours to total nursing care hours. |
| NSSC – 4 |
Contract to total nursing hours |
Percent of contract care hours (RN, LVN/LPN, and UAP) to total nursing care hours. |
| NSSC – 5 |
RN care hours per patient day |
Number of RN care hours per patient day. |
| NSSC – 6 |
Total nursing care hours per patient day |
Number of total nursing care hours (RN, LVN/LPN, and
UAP, employed and under contract) per patient day.
|
| NSSC – 7a |
RN + APN voluntary separations |
Rate of voluntary uncontrolled separations for
RNs and advanced practice nurses (APN) during the quarter relative
to the number employed at beginning of quarter.
|
| NSSC – 7b |
LVN+LPN+UAP voluntary separations |
Rate of voluntary uncontrolled separations during
the quarter for LVN/LPN and nurse assistants/aides (NA) relative
to the number employed at beginning of quarter.
|
| NSSC – 7c |
Staff turnover/voluntary separations |
Rate of voluntary uncontrolled separations during the
quarter for RN/APN/LVN/LPN and nurse assistants/aides (NA) relative to
the number employed at beginning of quarter.
|
Back to top
Table A.2. Summary Measures of Hospital Quality of Care, by Clinical Area
| Summary Measures |
Included Individual Measures* |
| Heart Disease |
AMI 1-6, 7a, 8a, HF 1-4 |
| Heart Attack |
AMI 1-6, 7a, 8a |
| Heart Failure |
HF 1-4 |
| Pneumonia Care |
PN 1, 2, 4, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7 |
| Preventing Infections |
|
| In General Surgery |
SCIP 1d-1g,
SCIP 2d-2g,
SCIP 3d-3g,
(SCIP-6,
SCIP-10,
SCIP-VTE-1,
SCIP-VTE-2)
|
| In Cardiac/Vascular Surgery |
SCIP 1b-1c, 1h;
SCIP 2b-2c, 2h;
SCIP 3b-3c, 3h;
SCIP-4
|
* See Appendix
Table A.1 for a description of individual measures.
Back to top
Table A.3. Individual Nursing Measures, Grouped by Type
| Types of Nursing Measure |
Included Individual Measures* |
| Nursing Care Outcomes |
NSPC 1, 2b, 3, 4 |
| Nursing Availability & Experience |
NSSC 1-6, 7a, 7b |
* See Appendix
Table A.1 for a description of individual measures.
Back to top
Table A.4. Individual Healthcare Associated Infection Measures, Grouped by Type
| Types of Healthcare Associated Infection Measure |
Included Individual Measures |
| Associated with Central Lines |
HAI-1 |
| Processes of Care Measures |
HAI-3,
-4,
and -5 |
* See Appendix
Table A.1 for a description of individual measures.
Back to top
References
1
National Quality Forum (2002). A National Framework for Healthcare Quality Measurement
and Reporting: A Consensus Report. Washington DC: National Quality Forum.
Available from:
http://input.qualityforum.org/publications/reports/.
2 Snijders, T. and Bosker, R. (1999).
Multilevel Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3 Kane RL, Shamliyan T, Mueller C, Duval S, Wilt T (2007).
Nursing Staffing and Quality of Patient Care. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 151
(Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-02-0009.)
AHRQ Publication No. 07-E005. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, March 2007.
Available from:
http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/nursestaff/nursestaff.pdf.
4
Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipset PA, et al. Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream
infection in the intensive care unit. Critical care Medicine, 2004;32:2014-2020.
5
Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al. Supine body position as a risk factor for
nosocomial pnuemonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized trial. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1851-1858.
6
Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, et al. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically
ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1471-1477.
Back to top