Article Data

  • Views 388
  • Dowloads 154

Original Research

Open Access Special Issue

Improving the mortality index among gynecologic oncology patients

  • Jolyn Taylor1,*,
  • Jennifer Miller2
  • Edith Ballard3
  • Corrine Byrd2
  • Anita Holloway4
  • Arletta Smith3
  • Anne K. Park5
  • Larissa A. Meyer1
  • Karen H. Lu1
  • Kathleen M. Schmeler1

1Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

2Health Information Management, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

3Revenue Operations and Coding, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

4Institutional Compliance, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

5Office of Performance Improvement, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

DOI: 10.22514/ejgo.2022.015 Vol.43,Issue 3,June 2022 pp.111-117

Submitted: 24 February 2022 Accepted: 19 April 2022

Published: 15 June 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gynaecological Oncology: Challenges for the 21st Century)

*Corresponding Author(s): Jolyn Taylor E-mail: Jstaylor1@mdanderson.org

Abstract

Background: The mortality index is a quality metric that measures the ratio of observed mortality to expected mortality among inpatients. Expected mortality is a probability calculation based on documentation of patient risks and comorbidities. A mortality index of <1.0 represents fewer patients dying while admitted to the hospital than expected. We aimed to decrease the mortality index in our department by 10% in 6 months. Methods: We formed a multidisciplinary team from Gynecologic Oncology, Health Information Management, Office of Performance Improvement, Revenue Operations, Coding and Institutional Compliance. We educated providers on documentation of patient comorbidities, standardized documentation templates, focused coder analysis and in-depth review and discussion as a department of all inpatient deaths. Pre-intervention 8/2017–7/2018 and post-intervention 11/2018–2/2020 outcomes were compared using the Mann Whitney U test. Results: The median mortality index decreased by 44% from 0.84 to 0.47 (p = 0.03). The median expected mortality increased by 37% from 2.94 to 4.02 (p = 0.002). The median number of inpatient deaths, or observed mortalities, was unchanged though there was a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusions: Inpatient mortality index is an important quality metric that can be improved through education, standardized documentation, focused review and discussion of all inpatient mortalities.


Keywords

Mortality index; Mortality review; Inpatient mortality


Cite and Share

Jolyn Taylor,Jennifer Miller,Edith Ballard,Corrine Byrd,Anita Holloway,Arletta Smith,Anne K. Park,Larissa A. Meyer,Karen H. Lu,Kathleen M. Schmeler. Improving the mortality index among gynecologic oncology patients. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology. 2022. 43(3);111-117.

References

[1] Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M. Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Affairs. 2003; 22: 84–94.

[2] Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, Brook RH. The Public Release of Performance Data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000; 283: 1866.

[3] Longo DR. Consumer reports in health care: do they make a difference in patient care? The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997; 278: 1579.

[4] Orlander JD, Fincke BG. Morbidity and mortality conference. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2003; 18: 656–658.

[5] Dholakia CA, Reavis KM. Morbidity and Mortality Conference. The SAGES Manual of Quality, Outcomes and Patient Safety (pp. 161–164). Boston, MA: Springer. 2012.

[6] Harbison SP, Regehr G. Faculty and resident opinions regarding the role of morbidity and mortality conference. The American Journal of Surgery. 1999; 177: 136–139.

[7] Hutter MM, Rowell KS, Devaney LA, Sokal SM, Warshaw AL, Abbott WM, et al. Identification of Surgical Complications and Deaths: an Assessment of the Traditional Surgical Morbidity and Mortality Conference Compared with the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2006; 203: 618–624.

[8] Horwood CR, Latimer T, Powers CJ, Moffatt-Bruce SD, Rushing GD, Eiferman DS. Improving the mortality index by capturing patient acuity through interprofessional real-time documentation improvement in a single hospital system. Surgery. 2018; 164: 687–693.

[9] Ferris TG, Torchiana DF. Public Release of Clinical Outcomes Data —Online CABG Report Cards. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363: 1593–1595.

[10] Barbieri JS, Fuchs BD, Fishman N, Cutilli CC, Umscheid CA, Kean C, et al. The Mortality Review Committee: a Novel and Scalable Approach to Reducing Inpatient Mortality. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2013; 39: 387–AP9.

[11] Dharmarajan K, Hsieh AF, Lin Z, Bueno H, Ross JS, Horwitz LI, et al. Diagnoses and Timing of 30-Day Readmissions after Hospitalization for Heart Failure, Acute Myocardial Infarction, or Pneumonia. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013; 309: 355.

[12] Martin G, Majumder A, Adams Z, Binger T, Harder B. Methodology U.S. News & World Report 2019-2020 Best Hospitals Procedures & Conditions Ratings. 2019.

[13] Pope DG. Reacting to rankings: Evidence from “America’s Best Hospitals” Journal of Health Economics. 2009; 28: 1154–1165.

[14] Jin GZ, Sorensen AT. Information and consumer choice: the value of publicized health plan ratings. Journal of Health Economics. 2006; 25: 248–275.

[15] Scanlon DP, Chernew M, McLaughlin C, Solon G. The impact of health plan report cards on managed care enrollment. Journal of Health Economics. 2002; 21: 19–41.

[16] Wedig GJ, Tai-Seale M. The effect of report cards on consumer choice in the health insurance market. Journal of Health Economics. 2002; 21: 1031–1048.

[17] DesHarnais SI, Chesney JD, Wroblewski RT, Fleming ST, McMahon LF. The Risk-Adjusted Mortality Index: a new measure of hospital performance. Medical Care. 1988; 26: 1129–1148.

[18] Arquiette JM, Moss HA, Truong T, Pieper CF, Havrilesky LJ. Impact of a documentation intervention on health-assessment metrics on an inpatient gynecologic oncology service. Gynecologic Oncology. 2019; 153: 385–390.

[19] Pinnock H, Barwick M, Carpenter CR, Eldridge S, Grandes G, Griffiths CJ, et al. Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI): explanation and elaboration document. BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e013318.

[20] Hui D, Kim SH, Roquemore J, Dev R, Chisholm G, Bruera E. Impact of timing and setting of palliative care referral on quality of end-of-life care in cancer patients. Cancer. 2014; 120: 1743–1749.

[21] Lloyd SS. Physician and coding errors in patient records. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1985; 254: 1330–1336.

[22] Shahian DM, Wolf RE, Iezzoni LI, Kirle L, Normand ST. Variability in the Measurement of Hospital-wide Mortality Rates. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363: 2530–2539.

[23] Kipnis P, Liu V, Escobar GJ. Accuracy of hospital standardized mortality rates: Effects of model calibration. Medical Care. 2014; 52: 378–384.

[24] Pitches DW, Mohammed MA, Lilford RJ. What is the empirical evidence that hospitals with higher-risk adjusted mortality rates provide poorer quality care? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Services Research. 2007; 7: 91.

[25] Dubois RW, Rogers WH, Moxley JH, Draper D, Brook RH. Hospital Inpatient Mortality. New England Journal of Medicine. 1987; 317: 1674–1680.

[26] Thomas JW, Hofer TP. Accuracy of Risk-Adjusted Mortality Rate as a Measure of Hospital Quality of Care. Medical Care. 1999; 37: 83–92.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top