Measures based on routinely collected data would be useful to examine the epidemiology of patient safety. Extending previous work, we established the face and consensual validity of twenty Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs). We generated a national profile of patient safety by applying these PSIs to the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample. The incidence of most nonobstetric PSIs increased with age and was higher among African Americans than among whites. The adjusted incidence of most PSIs was highest at urban teaching hospitals. The PSIs may be used in AHRQ's National Quality Report, while providers may use them to screen for preventable complications, target opportunities for improvement, and benchmark performance.

BackgroundCare coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims).ResultsAmong the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%).ConclusionsNew measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life.

Objectives-Patient transfers between hospitals are becoming more common in the United States. Disease-specific studies have reported varying outcomes associated with transfer status. However, even as national quality improvement efforts and regulations are being actively adopted, forcing hospitals to become financially accountable for the quality of care provided, surprisingly little is known about transfer patients or their outcomes at a population level. This population-wide study provides timely analyses of the characteristics of this particularly vulnerable and sizable inpatient population. We identified and compared characteristics and outcomes of transfer and nontransfer patients.Methods-With the use of the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative sample of U.S. hospitalizations, we examined patient characteristics, in-hospital adverse events, and discharge disposition for transfer versus nontransfer patients in this observational study.Results-We identified 1,397,712 transfer patients and 31,692,211 nontransfer patients. Age, sex, race, and payer were significantly associated with odds of transfer (P < 0.05). Transfer patients had higher risk-adjusted inpatient mortality (4.6 versus 2.1, P < 0.01), longer length of stay (13.3 versus 4.5, P < 0.01), and fewer routine disposition discharges (53.6 versus 68.7, P < 0.01). In-hospital adverse events were significantly higher in transfer patients compared with nontransfer patients (P < 0.05).Conclusions-Our results suggest that transfer patients have inferior outcomes compared with nontransfer patients. Although they are clinically complex patients and assessing accountability as between the transferring and receiving hospitals is methodologically difficult, transfer patients must nonetheless be included in quality benchmark data to assess the potential impact this population has on hospital outcome profiles. With hospital accountability and value-based payments constituting an integral part of health care reform, documenting the quality of care delivered to transfer patients is essential before accurate quality assessment improvement efforts can begin in this patient population.Correspondence: Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Population Science Building, Stanford University, 1070 Arastradero Rd, Suite 307, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (Boussard@stanford.edu). The authors disclose no conflict of interest. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ties financial incentives to the quality of hospital performance, which is intended to improve patient outcomes. 7 Currently, these incentives focus on adherence to process measures and patient outcomes. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has identified benchmarks of performance, which include a range of general and disease-specific administrative claims-based quality indicators. 8 Most of these indicators focus on elective admissions in relatively stable populations. Currently, specifications for CMS mortality and readmissions indicators handle transfers differently, with mortality as...

Tracking potentially preventable complications and hospitalizations has the potential to help prioritize quality improvement efforts at both local and national levels, although additional validation research is needed to confirm the accuracy of coding.

Clinicians supported some expanded uses of the PQIs, but generally expressed reservations. Attention to denominator definitions and risk adjustment are essential for expanded use.