Severity-Adjusted Mortality and Length of Stay in Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals
- 13 August 1997
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA)
- Vol. 278 (6) , 485-490
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550060061037
Abstract
Context. —Major teaching hospitals are perceived as being more expensive than other hospitals and, thus, unattractive to managed care. However, little empirical data exist about their relative quality and efficiency. The current study compared severity-adjusted mortality and length of stay (LOS) in teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Design. —Retrospective cohort study. Setting. —Thirty hospitals in northeast Ohio. Patients. —A total of 89 851 consecutive eligible patients discharged in 1991 through 1993 with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, obstructive airway disease, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pneumonia, or stroke. Main Outcome Measures. —In-hospital mortality and LOS of patients in major teaching (n=5), minor teaching (n=6), and nonteaching (n=19) hospitals were adjusted for admission severity of illness using multivariable models based on demographic and clinical data abstracted from patients' medical records. Results. —The adjusted odds of death was 19% lower (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-34%;P=.03) for patients in major teaching hospitals compared with nonteaching hospitals but was similar (95% CI, 7% lower to 28% higher;P=.28 for patients in minor teaching hospitals. The findings were generally consistent in analyses stratified according to diagnosis, age, race, predicted risk of death, and other covariates. In addition, risk-adjusted LOS was 9% lower (95% CI, 8%-10%;P<.001) among patients in major teaching hospitals relative to nonteaching hospitals but was similar (95% CI, 2% lower to 11% higher;P=.17) in minor teaching hospitals. Major teaching hospitals also cared for higher proportions of nonwhite and poorly insured patients. Conclusions. —Risk-adjusted mortality and LOS were lower for patients in major teaching hospitals than for patients in minor teaching and nonteaching hospitals. If generalizable to other regions, the results provide evidence that hospital performance, as assessed by 2 commonly used indicators, may be higher in major teaching hospitals. These findings are noteworthy at a time when the viability of many major teaching hospitals is threatened by powerful health care market forces and by potential changes in federal financing of graduate medical education.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Declines in Hospital Mortality Associated with a Regional Initiative to Measure Hospital PerformanceAmerican Journal of Medical Quality, 1997
- Academic Medical Centers under SiegeNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994
- Financial performance of academic medical center hospitalsAcademic Medicine, 1993
- Teaching status and resource use for patients with acute myocardial infarction: a new look at the indirect costs of graduate medical education.American Journal of Public Health, 1990
- Severity of illness and the teaching hospitalAcademic Medicine, 1986
- Case-mix and Cost Differences Between Teaching and Nonteaching HospitalsMedical Care, 1985
- Case Mix, Costs, and Outcomes: Differences Between Faculty and Community Services in a University HospitalPublished by National Bureau of Economic Research ,1983
- The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.Radiology, 1982
- CASE-FATALITY OF HYPERPLASIA OF THE PROSTATE IN TWO TEACHING AND THREE REGIONAL-BOARD HOSPITALSThe Lancet, 1971
- FATALITY FROM THREE COMMON SURGICAL CONDITIONS IN TEACHING AND NON-TEACHING HOSPITALSThe Lancet, 1957