1 / 29

Hospital and Surgeon Report Cards in California – Focus on CABG Surgery

Hospital and Surgeon Report Cards in California – Focus on CABG Surgery. Joseph Parker, Ph.D . Manager, Healthcare Outcomes Center, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 5/15/2012. Presentation Outline. LEGISLATIVE/OSHPD HISTORY OF OUTCOMES REPORTING IN CALIFORNIA

rene
Download Presentation

Hospital and Surgeon Report Cards in California – Focus on CABG Surgery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Hospital and Surgeon Report Cards in California – Focus on CABG Surgery Joseph Parker, Ph.D. Manager, Healthcare Outcomes Center, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development 5/15/2012

  2. Presentation Outline • LEGISLATIVE/OSHPD HISTORY OF OUTCOMES REPORTING IN CALIFORNIA • CALIFORNIA CABG OUTCOMES REPORTING PROGRAM (CCORP) DESCRIPTION • KEY ISSUES IN PUBLIC REPORTING and ISSUES SPECIFIC TO SURGEON REPORTING • IMPACT OF PUBLIC REPORTING • OTHER AREAS OF RESEARCH & ANALYSIS • Evaluation of Post-Operative Stroke for Hospital Public Reporting (Time permitting)

  3. Public Reporting: Supporting Arguments • Quality reporting will help consumers make more informed healthcare decisions and provide payers and employers with information to help them spend their healthcare dollars more effectively (value-based decision making) • Outcome reports improve the quality of healthcare by providing greater transparency about hospital/surgeon outcomes (media, reputation) • Enables providers to benchmark their performance and direct internal quality improvement activities • Data may enable some QI activities • Enables review of cases with possible care issues • Brings to light data quality issues

  4. OSHPD IN THE CALIFORNIAGOVERNMENT HIERARCHY Governor Health & Human Services CPHS Mental Health OSHPD Health Care Services Public Health EMSA MRMIB Other CHHS Departments: Aging, Alcohol and Drug Programs, Child Support Services, Community Services and Development, Developmental Services, Social Services, and Rehabilitation Non-CHHS Health Departments: Managed Health Care, Corporations, Consumer Affairs, Patient Advocate

  5. Legislative History of OSHPD’s Quality Reporting Programs • Most directed at OSHPD patient discharge data • AB 524 – 1991: Established current hospital risk-adjusted mortality public reporting program • SB 1973 – 1998: Allowed OSHPD to add clinical data to discharge data to improve risk models for outcome reports • Reports on heart attack, community acquired pneumonia, and ICU mortality produced – working on stroke and hip fracture • AHRQ Inpatient Mortality Indicators

  6. CCORP Reports • Last two reports: 2007-2008, 2009

  7. CCMRP: Limitations • Voluntary participation (approx. 70% of hospitals) • Lack of data on non-participants • Suspected that non-participants were poorer performers • Hospitals could withdraw after seeing preliminary results • Stakeholder Insistence on statewide reporting • If New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey are doing it, why can’t California? • Voluntary program demonstrated that scientifically valid quality reporting was possible

  8. Legislation: Senate Bill 680 (2001) Created mandatory data reporting program, California CABG Outcomes Reporting Program (CCORP) for all California licensed hospitals that perform heart bypass surgery Program Elements: • Risk-adjusted results to be reported by hospital (every year) and by surgeon (every two years) • Hospital and surgeon data review process • Surgeon “appeals” process to contest ratings • 9-member Clinical Advisory Panel (CAP) with 4 surgeons • Annual hospital data audits

  9. Coronary CABG Outcomes Reporting Program (CCORP) • First year of data collection 2003 • Data collected on ALL CABG surgeries, but outcomes reporting only on isolated CABG (for now) • Surgeon certification of final data • Hospital penalty for late filings ($100 per day) • Extensive data quality activities

  10. Ensuring Data Quality and Integrity • Hospital data abstractor training • Clinical consultation on coding issues • CCORP expert cardiologist, UC Davis cardiologists • Online data submission with automated edits • Quality comparison reports (statewide vs. hospital) • Required medical chart documentation for some conditions (op report, etc.) • Linkages to Patient Discharge Data and Death File • Yearly hospital medical chart audits & auditor training

  11. Hospital Medical Chart Audits • Audit Approach • Preliminary hospital and surgeon outliers • Near hospital and surgeon outliers • Hospitals with probable over-reporting of important risk factors • Hospitals from a random pool • All deaths, post-op strokes and higher-risk patients • Number of records proportional to hospital size • Blinded on-site medical chart audits by cardiac nurses with cardiologist over-reads • Audit results provided to hospitals to improve coding • Audit data replaces submitted data

  12. 2008 Audit Sample - Design • 18,042 CABGs at 120 hospitals / 264 surgeons • 14,043 isolated; 3,999 non-isolated CABGs • Audit outlier and near-outlier hospitals/surgeons (isolated or non-isolated CABGs) • Audit hospitals with coding issues • Audit random hospitals • Total # of hospitals for audit • Total 2593 records audited (approx. 14% all CABGs) • Cost: Approx. $500,000 N=21 N=10 N=5 N=36

  13. Key 2008 Audit Findings - Coding of Risk Factors

  14. Coding Quality in CCORP Audits 2003-2007 0.50 Mitral Insufficiency 0.25 0.68 MI Timing 0.56 0.58 Number of Diseased Vessels 0.49 0.47 NYHA Class IV 0.25 0.92 0.89 IMA Use

  15. Preliminary Report Results • Hospitals (60 day review) • Preliminary risk-adjusted mortality rates for all hospitals • Performance ratings – worse-, better-, or not different- than state average • Instructions on how to submit a comment letter for final report • Surgeons (30 days to appeal) • Preliminary risk-adjusted results for only that surgeon • Performance rating – worse-, better-, or not different- than state average • Instructions on how to appeal if “results do not accurately reflect the quality of care provided”

  16. Audit Effect on Hospital Outlier Status (N Hospitals = 120)

  17. Surgeon “Appeal” Process • Surgeons submit statements and supporting documentation • OSHPD reviews statements and agrees or disagrees with surgeon request • Surgeons not satisfied with OSHPD decision can forward statement to Clinical Advisory Panel for review • Panel will: • Uphold the OSHPD decision OR • Reach one of the other conclusions set forth by the law • Flaw in the risk model so report is flawed (correct or don’t release) • Flaw in surgeon data so corrections required • Panel’s determination is final

  18. Surgeon Statement Process • 2003-2004 Report • 31 Statements - 15 forwarded to Panel • Panel did not agree with OSHPD on 8 cases, allowed resubmission of data for 6 • 3 surgeons’ performance ratings changed as a result of review process • 2007-2008 Report • 9Statements – 5 forwarded to Panel • Panel concurred with all OSHPD decisions • Issues • Very high-risk patients/rare serious conditions (risk model inadequate) • Refusal of blood products (e.g., Jehovah’s Witness) • Non-isolated vs. isolated CABG assignment • Assignment of responsible surgeon

  19. Current Report Contents • Performance ratings (“worse” than, “better” than, or same as state average) for hospitals and surgeons on isolated CABG surgeries • Hospital performance ratings for post-operative stroke and readmission w/in 30 days after isolated CABG surgery • Hospital performance ratings for use of the Internal Mammary Artery • Only low (poor) usage hospitals given performance rating • Hospital/Surgeon volume and outcome(s) associations • Statewide trends in CABG and PCI volumes and mortality

  20. Impact of CABG Report • Hospitals have instituted internal QI programs • Reported changes in hospital contracting/referrals, especially after release of surgeon reports • Surgeons more involved in the data quality review • In-hospital mortality rates have declined 36% since start of mandatory program • UC Davis preliminary report on “Impact of Mandatory Public Reporting” • Marked and sustained drop in observed and risk-adjusted operative mortality • No detectable avoidance of high-risk patients

  21. Expected Operative Mortality by Quarter

  22. Risk-adjusted Operative Mortality by Quarter

  23. Volume of Isolated CABG, Non-Isolated CABG, and PCI Surgery in California 1997-2010

  24. In-Hospital Mortality Rates for Isolated CABG, Non-Isolated CABG, and PCI Surgery in California 1997-2010

  25. Observed Isolated CABG Inpatient Mortality Rates for CA and other Reporting States (1996-2010)

  26. OTHER CABG REPORTING ISSUES • Internal Mammary Artery Usage • 92% in 2005 vs. 96% in 2009 • 7 “low” outliers in 2005 vs. 5 in 2009 • Volume – Outcome Relationship • Sometimes significant but weak at hospital level • Generally significant but not strong at physician level (hierarchical linear modeling used for analysis) • No longer part of public report • CABG Volume Vs. PCI Volume • The relevance of CABG reporting with dwindling volume • Importance of reporting PCI outcomes

  27. OTHER OUTCOMES REPORTING ISSUES • Operative vs. 30-day Mortality (fairness to teaching/public hospitals) • Appropriateness of care – CABG vs. PCI vs. medical treatment • Complications • Composite measure issues • Logistic regression vs. hierarchical linear models • Issue of small volume hospitals • Issues around interpretability of results • Parsimonious vs. more complete risk models

More Related