Leapfrog Safety Grades in California Hospitals: A Data Analysis.

Daniel Razick, Noorhan Amani, Lara Ali, Mark Bachir, Ahmed Salem, Vijay Khatri
{"title":"Leapfrog Safety Grades in California Hospitals: A Data Analysis.","authors":"Daniel Razick, Noorhan Amani, Lara Ali, Mark Bachir, Ahmed Salem, Vijay Khatri","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Within the realm of health care quality assessment, quality assurance and safety grading systems play a vital role in gauging hospital performance and communicating results to the general public. The primary objective of this review is to analyze the hospitals in California through the lens of Leapfrog Safety Grades and discuss the complex interplay of geographical location, hospital size, and larger system affiliation status. Leapfrog Safety Grades, hospital characteristics, and geographic information were collected. Hospitals were categorized by geographic region, size, rural/urban classification, and larger system affiliation status. Of the 284 hospitals included in the study, 95 were given a grade of A, 68 given a grade of B, 93 given a grade of C, 23 given a grade of D, 2 given a grade of F, and 3 were not graded. The vast majority of hospitals in California were classified as urban, with 183 falling under this category. The average number of hospital beds and SD was 227 ± 47.57. On average, hospitals that received a grade of D were significantly smaller in size than those that received a grade of A, while hospitals that received a grade of B or C were similar in size. A total of 107 hospitals were affiliated with a larger health care system. About 70% of hospitals affiliated with a system received an A or B grade, while 50% of unaffiliated hospitals received an A or B grade. Results of this study demonstrate a need for improving health care access and quality in medically underserved urban and rural areas. Hospitals affiliated with a larger health care system received higher grades than unaffiliated hospitals, suggesting that affiliation may also play a role in the implementation and mitigation of factors that contribute to Leapfrog Safety Grades.</p>","PeriodicalId":101338,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Within the realm of health care quality assessment, quality assurance and safety grading systems play a vital role in gauging hospital performance and communicating results to the general public. The primary objective of this review is to analyze the hospitals in California through the lens of Leapfrog Safety Grades and discuss the complex interplay of geographical location, hospital size, and larger system affiliation status. Leapfrog Safety Grades, hospital characteristics, and geographic information were collected. Hospitals were categorized by geographic region, size, rural/urban classification, and larger system affiliation status. Of the 284 hospitals included in the study, 95 were given a grade of A, 68 given a grade of B, 93 given a grade of C, 23 given a grade of D, 2 given a grade of F, and 3 were not graded. The vast majority of hospitals in California were classified as urban, with 183 falling under this category. The average number of hospital beds and SD was 227 ± 47.57. On average, hospitals that received a grade of D were significantly smaller in size than those that received a grade of A, while hospitals that received a grade of B or C were similar in size. A total of 107 hospitals were affiliated with a larger health care system. About 70% of hospitals affiliated with a system received an A or B grade, while 50% of unaffiliated hospitals received an A or B grade. Results of this study demonstrate a need for improving health care access and quality in medically underserved urban and rural areas. Hospitals affiliated with a larger health care system received higher grades than unaffiliated hospitals, suggesting that affiliation may also play a role in the implementation and mitigation of factors that contribute to Leapfrog Safety Grades.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加州医院的 Leapfrog 安全评级:数据分析。
在医疗质量评估领域,质量保证和安全分级系统在衡量医院绩效和向公众传达结果方面发挥着至关重要的作用。本综述的主要目的是通过 Leapfrog 安全等级的视角对加利福尼亚州的医院进行分析,并讨论地理位置、医院规模和较大系统附属地位之间复杂的相互作用。我们收集了 Leapfrog 安全等级、医院特征和地理信息。医院按地理区域、规模、农村/城市分类和较大系统附属状态进行分类。在纳入研究的 284 家医院中,95 家医院被评为 A 级,68 家医院被评为 B 级,93 家医院被评为 C 级,23 家医院被评为 D 级,2 家医院被评为 F 级,3 家医院未被评级。加利福尼亚州的绝大多数医院被划分为城市医院,其中 183 家属于城市医院。医院床位数的平均值为 227 ± 47.57。平均而言,获得 D 级的医院规模明显小于获得 A 级的医院,而获得 B 级或 C 级的医院规模相近。共有 107 家医院隶属于较大的医疗保健系统。隶属于某个系统的医院中约有 70% 获得了 A 级或 B 级,而未隶属于该系统的医院中则有 50% 获得了 A 级或 B 级。这项研究结果表明,在医疗服务不足的城市和农村地区,有必要改善医疗服务的可及性和质量。隶属于大型医疗保健系统的医院比未隶属于该系统的医院获得了更高的评级,这表明隶属关系也可能在实施和缓解导致 Leapfrog 安全评级的因素方面发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Leapfrog Safety Grades in California Hospitals: A Data Analysis. Tips From the Iceberg: Effecting Culture Change in Health Care Teams. Improving Inpatient Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: A Successful Quality Improvement Project. The Healthcare Improvement and Innovation in Quality (THINQ) Collaborative: A Novel Quality Improvement Training Program for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. Integrating Social Drivers of Health into Hospital Ratings with Application to the 100 Top Hospitals Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1