We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.
Variations in medical care for HIV-related Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia: a comparison of process and outcome at two hospitals.
Chest 1997 August
BACKGROUND: Institutional variation in the quality of medical care may be evaluated by examining process measures, such as use of diagnostic procedures or treatment modalities, or outcome measures, such as mortality. We undertook this study to examine variations in both process and outcome of care for patients with HIV-related Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) at two geographically diverse, HIV-experienced, public municipal hospitals.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of hospitalized patients diagnosed as having PCP cared for at two municipal hospitals from 1988 to 1990. At hospital A, charts of all patients diagnosed as having PCP were abstracted (n=209); at hospital B, a random sample of 15% were abstracted (=136).
RESULTS: Among all hospitalized patients diagnosed as having PCP, the frequency of making a definitive diagnosis of PCP (as opposed to treating empirically) differed markedly at the two hospitals (85% in hospital A vs 26% in hospital B; p<0.001), as did the use of intensive care (18% vs 3%; p<0.001) and "do-not-resuscitate" orders (39% vs 14%; p<0.001), although the timing of starting anti-Pneumocystis medications (89% vs 88% within the first 2 hospital days) and the use of corticosteroids (21% vs 23%) were similar. Despite differences in the process of care, survival rates were similar at the two institutions (75% vs 76%; p=0.8) and remained similar when logistic regression was used to control for demographic variables and severity of illness (odds ratio for survival, hospital B vs A, 1.2 [95% confidence interval, 0.7, 2.0]). The 95% confidence intervals (0.7, 2.0), however, were consistent with a considerable (and clinically significant) disparity in survival (from 30% lower to a twofold higher odds of survival). Sample size calculations showed that a sample of 10 cases in each hospital would be required to detect the observed difference in definitive diagnosis rates (85% vs 26%), but 722 cases in each hospital would be required to detect a relevant difference in mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: The process of care for hospitalized patients with PCP in these two institutions differed considerably, but the survival rates were not significantly different, even after adjusting for confounding factors. While sample sizes available at the individual institutions were sufficient for evaluation of the process of care, they did not provide the power necessary to evaluate outcomes. Comparisons of outcomes such as mortality between individual hospitals may not have the statistical power to exclude important differences.
DESIGN: Retrospective review of hospitalized patients diagnosed as having PCP cared for at two municipal hospitals from 1988 to 1990. At hospital A, charts of all patients diagnosed as having PCP were abstracted (n=209); at hospital B, a random sample of 15% were abstracted (=136).
RESULTS: Among all hospitalized patients diagnosed as having PCP, the frequency of making a definitive diagnosis of PCP (as opposed to treating empirically) differed markedly at the two hospitals (85% in hospital A vs 26% in hospital B; p<0.001), as did the use of intensive care (18% vs 3%; p<0.001) and "do-not-resuscitate" orders (39% vs 14%; p<0.001), although the timing of starting anti-Pneumocystis medications (89% vs 88% within the first 2 hospital days) and the use of corticosteroids (21% vs 23%) were similar. Despite differences in the process of care, survival rates were similar at the two institutions (75% vs 76%; p=0.8) and remained similar when logistic regression was used to control for demographic variables and severity of illness (odds ratio for survival, hospital B vs A, 1.2 [95% confidence interval, 0.7, 2.0]). The 95% confidence intervals (0.7, 2.0), however, were consistent with a considerable (and clinically significant) disparity in survival (from 30% lower to a twofold higher odds of survival). Sample size calculations showed that a sample of 10 cases in each hospital would be required to detect the observed difference in definitive diagnosis rates (85% vs 26%), but 722 cases in each hospital would be required to detect a relevant difference in mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: The process of care for hospitalized patients with PCP in these two institutions differed considerably, but the survival rates were not significantly different, even after adjusting for confounding factors. While sample sizes available at the individual institutions were sufficient for evaluation of the process of care, they did not provide the power necessary to evaluate outcomes. Comparisons of outcomes such as mortality between individual hospitals may not have the statistical power to exclude important differences.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app