首页> 外文期刊>Spine >The Association of 'US News & World Report' Hospital Rankings and Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Fusions Do Rankings Even Matter?
【24h】

The Association of 'US News & World Report' Hospital Rankings and Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Fusions Do Rankings Even Matter?

机译:“美国新闻与世界报告”医院排名和成果协会宫颈融合术后的排名甚至很重要?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Study Design. Retrospective observational study. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and costs for elective one- to three-level anterior cervical fusions (ACFs) performed at US News and World Report (USNWR) ranked and unranked hospitals. Summary of Background Data. Although the USNWR rankings are advertised by media and are routinely used by patients as a guide in seeking care, evidence regarding whether these rankings are reflective of actual clinical outcome remains limited. Methods. The 2010-2014 USNWR hospital rankings were used to identify ranked hospitals in "Neurosurgery" and "Orthopedics." The 2010-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) were used to identify patients undergoing elective ACFs at ranked and unranked hospitals. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes and costs between ranked and unranked hospitals. Results. A total of 110,520 patients undergoing elective one- to three-level ACFs were included in the study, of which 10,289 (9.3%) underwent surgery in one of the 100 ranked hospitals. Following multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between ranked versus unranked hospitals with regards to wound complications (1.2% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.907), cardiac complications (12.9% vs. 11.9%; P = 0.055), pulmonary complications (3.7% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.654), urinary tract infections (7.3% vs. 5.8%; P = 0.120), sepsis (9.3% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.847), deep venous thrombosis (1.9% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.077), revision surgery (0.3% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.617), and all-cause readmissions (4.7% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.266). Ranked hospitals, as compared to unranked hospitals, had a slightly lower odds of experiencing renal complications (7.0% vs. 4.9%; P = 0.047), but had significantly higher risk-adjusted 90-day charges (+$17,053; P < 0.001) and costs (+ $1695; P < 0.001). Conclusion. Despite the higher charges and costs of care at ranked hospitals, these facilities appear to have similar outcomes as compared to unranked hospitals following elective ACFs.
机译:研究设计。回顾性观察研究。客观的本研究的目的是评估在美国新闻和世界报道(USNWR)排名的医院和非排名的医院进行的选择性一至三节段颈椎前路融合(ACF)的结果和成本是否存在差异。背景数据摘要。尽管媒体宣传USNWR排名,并将其作为患者寻求护理的常规指南,但关于这些排名是否反映实际临床结果的证据仍然有限。方法。2010-2014年USNWR医院排名用于确定“神经外科”和“骨科”的排名医院2010-2014年100%医疗保险标准分析文件(SAF100)用于识别在排名和非排名医院接受选择性ACF治疗的患者。多变量逻辑回归和广义线性回归分析用于评估排名医院和非排名医院之间90天结果和成本的差异。后果共有110520名患者接受了选择性一至三级ACF治疗,其中10289名(9.3%)在100家排名靠前的医院中接受了手术。经过多变量分析,在伤口并发症(1.2%比1.1%;P=0.907)、心脏并发症(12.9%比11.9%;P=0.055)、肺部并发症(3.7%比6.7%;P=0.654)、尿路感染(7.3%比5.8%;P=0.120)、败血症(9.3%比7.9%;P=0.847)方面,排名医院与非排名医院之间没有显著差异,深静脉血栓形成(1.9%对1.3%;P=0.077)、翻修手术(0.3%对0.3%;P=0.617)和全因再入院(4.7%对4.4%;P=0.266)。排名靠前的医院与未排名靠前的医院相比,发生肾脏并发症的几率略低(7.0%比4.9%;P=0.047),但经风险调整后的90天费用(+17053美元;P<0.001)和成本(+1695美元;P<0.001)明显更高。结论尽管排名靠前的医院的医疗费用和成本更高,但与非排名靠后的医院相比,这些设施似乎具有类似的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号