评价医院绩效和处罚的再入院差距测量。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Yajun Yi, Henry John Domenico, Leta Yi, Wei Xiang, Xiayu Xiang
{"title":"评价医院绩效和处罚的再入院差距测量。","authors":"Yajun Yi, Henry John Domenico, Leta Yi, Wei Xiang, Xiayu Xiang","doi":"10.1186/s13690-025-01726-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The excess readmission ratio (ERR) is currently used to determine penalties for hospitals with excessive readmission rates. To determine whether the effectiveness of alternative measures, such as the Risk-Standardized Readmission Rate (RSRR), or Excess Days in Acute Care (EDAC), or differences between paired measures, would provide comparable or superior assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective national study on readmission measures. This study analyzed national readmission data from 3,047 hospitals for the fiscal year (FY) 2022. We measured the agreements and disparity scores in hospital performance assessments, as well as the changes in penalty status between the paired readmission measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ERR and RSRR measures showed a significantly high degree of agreement, ranging from 83.5 to 93.8% across the six applicable conditions/procedures. In contrast, marked differences emerged when comparing EDAC with ERR or RSRR, showing varying levels of disparities. If the EDAC measure were adopted, between 15.9 and 25.2% of hospitals would experience a change in their penalty status. Specifically, using EDAC would reduce financial penalties for 11.4-16.6% of small community hospitals and safety-net hospitals for at least one of the targeted conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that integrating disparity scores into the current ERR-based measurement system could have significant implications for promoting equity and informing policy decisions. By doing so, the evaluation of individual providers and hospital care quality could become more comprehensive, insightful, accurate, and equitable.</p>","PeriodicalId":48578,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Public Health","volume":"83 1","pages":"241"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hospital readmission disparity measure for evaluating hospital performance and penalties.\",\"authors\":\"Yajun Yi, Henry John Domenico, Leta Yi, Wei Xiang, Xiayu Xiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13690-025-01726-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The excess readmission ratio (ERR) is currently used to determine penalties for hospitals with excessive readmission rates. To determine whether the effectiveness of alternative measures, such as the Risk-Standardized Readmission Rate (RSRR), or Excess Days in Acute Care (EDAC), or differences between paired measures, would provide comparable or superior assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective national study on readmission measures. This study analyzed national readmission data from 3,047 hospitals for the fiscal year (FY) 2022. We measured the agreements and disparity scores in hospital performance assessments, as well as the changes in penalty status between the paired readmission measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ERR and RSRR measures showed a significantly high degree of agreement, ranging from 83.5 to 93.8% across the six applicable conditions/procedures. In contrast, marked differences emerged when comparing EDAC with ERR or RSRR, showing varying levels of disparities. If the EDAC measure were adopted, between 15.9 and 25.2% of hospitals would experience a change in their penalty status. Specifically, using EDAC would reduce financial penalties for 11.4-16.6% of small community hospitals and safety-net hospitals for at least one of the targeted conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that integrating disparity scores into the current ERR-based measurement system could have significant implications for promoting equity and informing policy decisions. By doing so, the evaluation of individual providers and hospital care quality could become more comprehensive, insightful, accurate, and equitable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Public Health\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01726-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01726-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:超额再入院率(ERR)目前被用于确定对再入院率过高的医院的处罚。确定替代措施的有效性,如风险标准化再入院率(RSRR)或急性护理额外天数(EDAC),或配对措施之间的差异,是否可以提供可比或更好的评估。方法:对全国再入院措施进行回顾性研究。该研究分析了2022财年3047家医院的再入院数据。我们测量了医院绩效评估中的一致性和差异得分,以及配对再入院措施之间处罚状态的变化。结果:ERR和RSRR测量结果显示出高度的一致性,在6个适用条件/程序中,一致性范围为83.5 ~ 93.8%。相比之下,EDAC与ERR或RSRR比较出现了显著差异,显示出不同程度的差异。如果采用EDAC措施,15.9%至25.2%的医院将改变其处罚状况。具体来说,使用EDAC将减少11.4-16.6%的小型社区医院和安全网医院的经济处罚,至少有一个目标条件。结论:这些发现表明,将差距分数整合到当前基于误差率的测量系统中,可能对促进公平和为政策决策提供信息具有重要意义。通过这样做,对个人提供者和医院护理质量的评估可以变得更加全面、深刻、准确和公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hospital readmission disparity measure for evaluating hospital performance and penalties.

Background: The excess readmission ratio (ERR) is currently used to determine penalties for hospitals with excessive readmission rates. To determine whether the effectiveness of alternative measures, such as the Risk-Standardized Readmission Rate (RSRR), or Excess Days in Acute Care (EDAC), or differences between paired measures, would provide comparable or superior assessments.

Methods: A retrospective national study on readmission measures. This study analyzed national readmission data from 3,047 hospitals for the fiscal year (FY) 2022. We measured the agreements and disparity scores in hospital performance assessments, as well as the changes in penalty status between the paired readmission measures.

Results: The ERR and RSRR measures showed a significantly high degree of agreement, ranging from 83.5 to 93.8% across the six applicable conditions/procedures. In contrast, marked differences emerged when comparing EDAC with ERR or RSRR, showing varying levels of disparities. If the EDAC measure were adopted, between 15.9 and 25.2% of hospitals would experience a change in their penalty status. Specifically, using EDAC would reduce financial penalties for 11.4-16.6% of small community hospitals and safety-net hospitals for at least one of the targeted conditions.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that integrating disparity scores into the current ERR-based measurement system could have significant implications for promoting equity and informing policy decisions. By doing so, the evaluation of individual providers and hospital care quality could become more comprehensive, insightful, accurate, and equitable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Public Health
Archives of Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.00%
发文量
244
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: rchives of Public Health is a broad scope public health journal, dedicated to publishing all sound science in the field of public health. The journal aims to better the understanding of the health of populations. The journal contributes to public health knowledge, enhances the interaction between research, policy and practice and stimulates public health monitoring and indicator development. The journal considers submissions on health outcomes and their determinants, with clear statements about the public health and policy implications. Archives of Public Health welcomes methodological papers (e.g., on study design and bias), papers on health services research, health economics, community interventions, and epidemiological studies dealing with international comparisons, the determinants of inequality in health, and the environmental, behavioural, social, demographic and occupational correlates of health and diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信