Is Survival Better at Hospitals With Higher “End-of-Life” Treatment Intensity?
- 1 February 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Medical Care
- Vol. 48 (2) , 125-132
- https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181c161e4
Abstract
Background: Concern regarding wide variations in spending and intensive care unit use for patients at the end of life hinges on the assumption that such treatment offers little or no survival benefit. Objective: To explore the relationship between hospital “end-of-life” (EOL) treatment intensity and postadmission survival. Research Design: Retrospective cohort analysis of Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council discharge data April 2001 to March 2005 linked to vital statistics data through September 2005 using hospital-level correlation, admission-level marginal structural logistic regression, and pooled logistic regression to approximate a Cox survival model. Subjects: A total of 1,021,909 patients ≥65 years old, incurring 2,216,815 admissions in 169 Pennsylvania acute care hospitals. Measures: EOL treatment intensity (a summed index of standardized intensive care unit and life-sustaining treatment use among patients with a high predicted probability of dying [PPD] at admission) and 30- and 180-day postadmission mortality. Results: There was a nonlinear negative relationship between hospital EOL treatment intensity and 30-day mortality among all admissions, although patients with higher PPD derived the greatest benefit. Compared with admission at an average intensity hospital, admission to a hospital 1 standard deviation below versus 1 standard deviation above average intensity resulted in an adjusted odds ratio of mortality for admissions at low PPD of 1.06 (1.04–1.08) versus 0.97 (0.96–0.99); average PPD: 1.06 (1.04–1.09) versus 0.97 (0.96–0.99); and high PPD: 1.09 (1.07–1.11) versus 0.97 (0.95–0.99), respectively. By 180 days, the benefits to intensity attenuated (low PPD: 1.03 [1.01–1.04] vs. 1.00 [0.98–1.01]; average PPD: 1.03 [1.02–1.05] vs. 1.00 [0.98–1.01]; and high PPD: 1.06 [1.04–1.09] vs. 1.00 [0.98–1.02]), respectively. Conclusions: Admission to higher EOL treatment intensity hospitals is associated with small gains in postadmission survival. The marginal returns to intensity diminish for admission to hospitals above average EOL treatment intensity and wane with time.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Returns to Local-Area Health Care Spending: Evidence from Health Shocks to Patients Far From HomeAmerican Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2011
- Development and Validation of Hospital “End-of-Life” Treatment Intensity MeasuresMedical Care, 2009
- The Value of Medical Spending in the United States, 1960–2000New England Journal of Medicine, 2006
- Hospital Volume and the Outcomes of Mechanical VentilationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2006
- Evaluating The Efficiency Of California Providers In Caring For Patients With Chronic IllnessesHealth Affairs, 2005
- Resurrecting Treatment Histories of Dead PatientsJAMA, 2004
- Use of hospitals, physician visits, and hospice care during last six months of life among cohorts loyal to highly respected hospitals in the United StatesBMJ, 2004
- Trends in Medicare Payments in the Last Year of LifeNew England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- Relation of pooled logistic regression to time dependent cox regression analysis: The framingham heart studyStatistics in Medicine, 1990
- ARE HOSPITAL SERVICES RATIONED IN NEW HAVEN OR OVER-UTILISED IN BOSTON?The Lancet, 1987