↓ Skip to main content

Public-private settlement and hospital mortality per sources of payment

Overview of attention for article published in Revista de Saúde Pública, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Public-private settlement and hospital mortality per sources of payment
Published in
Revista de Saúde Pública, July 2016
DOI 10.1590/s1518-8787.2016050006330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana Pires Machado, Mônica Martins, Iuri da Costa Leite

Abstract

To analyze if the adjusted hospital mortality varies according to source of payment of hospital admissions, legal nature, and financing settlement of hospitals. Cros-ssectional study with information source in administrative databases. Specific hospital admission reasons were selected considering the volume of hospital admissions and the list of quality indicators proposed by the North-American Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Were analyzed 852,864 hospital admissions of adults, occurred in 789 hospitals between 2008 and 2010, in Sao Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul, applying multilevel logistic regression. At hospital admission level, showed higher chances of death male patients in more advanced age groups, with comorbidity, who used intensive care unit, and had the Brazilian Unified Health System as source of payment. At the level of hospitals, in those located in the mean of the distribution, the adjusted probability of death in hospital admissions financed by plan or private was 5.0%, against 9.0% when reimbursed by the Brazilian Unified Health System. This probability increased in hospital admissions financed by the Brazilian Unified Health System in hospitals to two standard deviations above the mean, reaching 29.0%. In addition to structural characteristics of the hospitals and the profile of the patients, interventions aimed at improving care should also consider the coverage of the population by health plans, the network shared between beneficiaries of plans and users of the Brazilian Unified Health System, the standard of care to the various sources of payment by hospitals and, most importantly, how these factors influence the clinical performance. Analisar se a mortalidade hospitalar ajustada varia segundo fonte de pagamento das internações, natureza jurídica e arranjo de financiamento dos hospitais. Estudo observacional transversal com fonte de informações em bases de dados administrativos. Motivos de internação específicos foram selecionados considerando o volume de internações e a lista de indicadores de qualidade propostos pela agência norte-americana de pesquisa em saúde e qualidade (AHRQ). Foram analisadas 852.864 internações em adultos, ocorridas em 789 hospitais entre 2008 e 2010, em São Paulo e Rio Grande do Sul, aplicando regressão logística multinível. No nível da internação, apresentaram maiores chances de óbito pacientes do sexo masculino, em faixas etárias mais avançadas, com comorbidade, que utilizaram unidade de terapia intensiva, e tinham o Sistema Único de Saúde como fonte de pagamento. No nível dos hospitais, naqueles situados na média da distribuição, a probabilidade de morte ajustada nas internações financiadas por plano ou particular foi de 5,0%, contra 9,0% quando reembolsadas pelo Sistema Único de Saúde. Essa probabilidade aumentou nas internações financiadas pelo Sistema Único de Saúde em hospitais a dois desvios padrão acima da média, passando para 29,0%. Além das características estruturais dos hospitais e do perfil dos pacientes, intervenções voltadas para a melhoria do cuidado deveriam considerar também a cobertura da população por planos de saúde, a rede compartilhada entre beneficiários de planos e usuários do Sistema Único de Saúde, o padrão de atendimento às diversas fontes de pagamento pelos hospitais e, fundamentalmente, como esses fatores influenciam o desempenho clínico.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Revista de Saúde Pública
#988
of 1,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#336,389
of 378,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista de Saúde Pública
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 378,817 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.