Does admission to a teaching hospital affect acute myocardial infarction survival?

Role of Hospital Teaching Status on Outcomes of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Nationwide Analysis

BACKGROUND

Data regarding hospitalization outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with respect to hospital teaching status are largely unknown.

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the impact of hospital teaching status on IBD hospitalization outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we queried the 2016 and 2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases using the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) coding system. All adult patients with a principal diagnosis of IBD were included. We stratified the IBD group into ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn's disease (CD), and complicated IBD. Our primary outcome was mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA, version 16.0.

RESULTS

Of the 189,950 adult patients with IBD, the majority were admitted to teaching hospitals (70.9%). There was no significant difference in mortality based upon hospital teaching status (aOR 1.18, p = 0.48); however, these patients had an increased mean length of stay (adjusted coefficient: 0.82, p < 0.01), charges (adjusted coefficient: $8732, p < 0.01), and costs ($2871, p < 0.01). On subgroup analysis, patients with UC admitted to teaching hospitals had a significantly increased in-hospital mortality (aOR 2.11, p < 0.05), while those admitted with CD did not (aOR 0.80, p = 0.4). Among patients with complicated IBD, 73.17% were admitted to teaching hospitals, and no significant difference in in-hospital mortality was seen (aOR 1.06, p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

While outcome differences are likely related to multiple unaccounted factors, greater efforts should be placed to cost-effectively manage patients with IBD at teaching institutions. Future studies are warranted to fully comprehend these variations.

Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Medical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics.

DESIGN

Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05).

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA).

EXPOSURE

Treatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals.

MAIN MEASURES

Thirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival.

KEY RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used.

Does size matter? The impact of caseload and expertise concentration on AMI 30-day mortality-A comparison across 10 OECD countries

OBJECTIVE

To examine the variability of hospital performance within and across countries, using 30-day acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mortality, and to study the impact of hospital characteristics on performance.

STUDY SETTING

Hospital-level adjusted risk standardized mortality rates (RSMR) and hospital characteristics were collected from 10 OECD and two collaborating countries including 1,163 hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN

Associations between RSMR and hospital characteristics were studied using univariate and multivariate linear regressions. Clusters of hospitals were created using hierarchical clustering and mortality compared using linear regression.

FINDINGS

Wide variation between countries was found for RSMR and hospital characteristics. Regression models showed large country effects. A high volume of AMI admission was associated with lower RSMR in a model using a restricted number of hospital characteristics (-0.83, p < 0.001) but not in a model using all characteristics (-1.03, p = 0.06). Analysis within countries supported this association. Hospital clusters showed clear differences in characteristic distributions but no difference in RSMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of volume may support policies toward a concentration of services within the hospital sector. The effect of other hospital characteristics was inconclusive and suggests the importance of system-wide characteristics or pathways of care (i.e. timeliness and nature of initial response and during transportation to a hospital, transfers between hospitals, post-discharge organization) in explaining variation.

Relationship of Hospital Teaching Status with In-Hospital Outcomes for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Prior analyses have largely shown a survival advantage with admission to a teaching hospital for acute myocardial infarction. However, most prior studies report data on patients hospitalized over a decade ago. It is important to re-examine the association of hospital teaching status with outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in the current era.

METHODS

We queried the 2010 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample databases to identify all patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized with the principal diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to compare rates of reperfusion and in-hospital outcomes between patients admitted to teaching vs nonteaching hospitals.

RESULTS

Of 546,252 patients with STEMI, 273,990 (50.1%) were admitted to teaching hospitals. Compared with patients admitted to nonteaching hospitals, those at teaching hospitals were more likely to receive reperfusion therapy during the hospitalization (86.7% vs 81.5%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.44; P < .001) and had lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (4.9% vs 6.9%; adjusted OR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.82-0.86; P < .001). After further adjustment for differences in use of in-hospital reperfusion therapy, the association of teaching hospital status with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly attenuated but remained statistically significant (adjusted OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients admitted to teaching hospitals are more likely to receive reperfusion and have lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality after STEMI compared with those admitted to nonteaching hospitals. Our results suggest that hospital performance for STEMI continues to be better at teaching hospitals in the contemporary era.