Managed Care Information Center
Site Navigation:
E-mail a Friend
FREE E-Mail Newsletters
Subscribe to the leading management newsletters
Health Resources Online
* * *
Health Resources Publishing
* * *
Wellness Junction
* * *
Healthcare Intelligence Network
Contact MCIC

Managed Care Information Center
1913 Atlantic Ave., Suite 200
Manasquan, NJ  08736
(732) 292-1100
fax: (732) 292-1111

Home / News & IndustryManaged Care Insight and Analysis
Updated: February 1, 2011
Hospital Quality, Death Rates, Don’t Go Hand-in-Hand

Inpatient mortality rates used, by organizations to issue report cards on the quality of individual U.S. hospitals, are a poor gauge of how well hospitals actually perform and should be abandoned in favor of measures that more accurately assess patient harms and care provided, argued patient safety experts in a new study.

The study, co-authored by Dr. Peter Pronovost, professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Richard Lilford, professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Birmingham in England, appeared in the British Medical Journal.

The study said that hospital mortality rates take into account all inpatient deaths, not just the ones that could have been prevented with quality care. Since many patients are often too sick to be saved by the time they are admitted to the hospital, the researchers argue, hospital mortality rates shouldn’t be the factor that determines whether hospitals are "good" or "bad."

Only one of every 20 hospital deaths in the United States is believed to be preventable.

Pronovost and Lilford looked specifically at hospital standardized mortality ratios.

Hospital mortality seems like the most obvious way to judge a hospital’s care. It is easily measured, of undisputed importance to everyone, and common to all hospital settings. But it does not tell the whole story, Pronovost said.

"It’s laudable to want to look at preventing deaths. But if you want to look at preventing deaths, why on earth would you look at all deaths, when it’s only a small percentage that fall into that category?" he added.

Pronovost wants to use selected measures that are accurate, that are used to examine events that can be prevented and that have been scientifically studied. He isn’t against collecting data on mortality; he just thinks they shouldn’t be the sole basis for sanction or reward.

"The goal is to say, ‘Yes, we need to be more accountable for quality of care,’ but we need to be scientific in how we separate hospitals of better quality from hospitals of worse quality," he said.

Using mortality rates can mislead the public into thinking a hospital offers poor care when it does not, he said, or to comfort those who score well, who may just have a false sense of confidence since the rates are not meaningful. In the United Kingdom, mortality ratios vary by 60 percent among hospitals, making it an "absurd" measure of quality, Pronovost said, when only one in 20 deaths can be prevented.

One yardstick by which hospitals could be better judged, he said, is the rate of bloodstream infections in hospital intensive care units, which cause 31,000 deaths in U.S. hospitals each year. Pronovost’s previous research has found that these infections are largely preventable by hospitals that use a five-step checklist with simple steps proven to reduce the infections. Research on the checklist showed that bloodstream infections at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and hospitals throughout the state of Michigan, have been virtually eliminated when the checklist is followed.

Looking at some mortality rates may make sense, he said. For example, looking at death rates following a heart attack or elective surgery could be a quality measure since there is an expectation that those patients should survive.

He said more research needs to be done into which measures most accurately assess how hospitals prevent needless deaths. These, he said, should be how hospital quality is judged.

Address: Johns Hopkins University, 733 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205-2196; (410) 955-5000,

  This article was taken from:
Pay-For-Performance Reporter

Free Trial Subscription

Become a Subscriber

    Back to This Week's List of Articles

"Managed Care Weekly Watch"
Subscribe Here



Top | Home

Resource of the Month | Database of MCOs | Publications | News & Industry | Surveys & Research | Free Products | Advertising Arena | Inside MCIC | Managed Care Archives | | For Subscribers | Customer Service

©2011 The Managed Care Information Center