The aim of the study was to examine whether Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), the predominant type of hospital in small and isolated rural areas, perform better than, the same as, or worse than Prospective Payment System (PPS) hospitals on measures of quality.
The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases and American Hospital Association annual survey data were used for analyses. A total of 35,674 discharges from 136 nonfederal general hospitals with fewer than 50 beds were included in the analyses: 14,296 from 100 CAHs and 21,378 from 36 PPS hospitals. Outcome measures included 6 bivariate indicators of adverse events (including complications) of surgical care developed from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Indicators. Multiple logistic regression models were developed to examine the relationship between hospital adverse events and CAH status.
Compared with PPS hospitals, CAHs are significantly less likely to have any observed (unadjusted) adverse event on 4 of the 6 indicators. After adjusting for patient mix and hospital characteristics, CAHs perform better on 3 of the 6 indicators. Accounting for the number of discharges eliminated the differences between CAHs and PPS hospitals in the likelihood of adverse events across all indicators except one.
The study suggests there are no differences in surgical patient safety outcomes between CAHs and PPS hospitals of comparable size. This reinforces the central role of CAHs in providing quality surgical care to populations in rural and isolated areas, and underscores the importance of strategies to sustain rural surgery infrastructure.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#21,539,507
of 34,515,982 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Rural Health
#825
of 1,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,059
of 336,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Rural Health
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,515,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,277 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 336,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
