5. Public Reporting as a Quality Improvement Strategy

Section C
Table H3. Hospital quantitative studies: Columns 14-18 of 18 (pages H-40 to H-51)
15. Results: KQ5
(Impact of Public
Author,
Report
16. Results: KQ6 (Impact of
18. Funder of
Year (QA) 14. Results KQ4: (Selection by Patients and Payers) Characteristics) Contextual Factors) 17. Summary/Conclusion Research/Report
Apolito
2008 3
None None None For management (undergoing Partially supported by
PCI and/or CABG, having a grants from the
(Good)
coronary angiography), NY National Heart, Lung,
patients were approximately and blood Institute,
HALF AS LIKELY as non-NYers Bethesda, MD
to undergo treatment, except for
CABG, where it was much
closer to non-NYers. Everything
was statistically significant under
the .01 level here except for
CABG, both adjusted and
unadjusted.
H-56
Re: in-hospital mortality, before
adjustment, NY patients were
1.3 times more likely to die, but
there was no significance.
However, with propensity score
adjusted models, NY patents
were 1.5 times more likely to die
in-hospital than non-NYers and
this was stat. significant
(p=0.04)
In addition, among patients who
were not revascularized (no PCI
or CABG), NYers were 2.12
times more likely to die in
hospital (p=0.01), but among
those undergoing PCI/CABG,
there was not a statistically
significant relationship.
Author’s conclusion: Case
selection bias is evident in NY
(but uses evidence in discussion
that was not presented earlier
on).