Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28821517›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Quality differences between private for-profit, private non-profit and public hospitals in Norway: a retrospective national register-based study of acute readmission rates following total hip and knee arthroplasties.

Geir Hiller Holom, Terje P Hagen

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Resuming hip and knee arthroplasty after COVID-19: ethical implications for wellbeing, safety and the economy.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Hospital Ownership and Hospital Institutional Change: A Qualitative Study in Guizhou Province, China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Geir Hiller HolomDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Terje P HagenDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the quality of care-using unplanned acute hospital readmissions as a quality measure-among patients treated at private for-profit hospitals (PFPs), private non-profit hospitals (PNPs) and public hospitals (PUBs) in Norway.

designA retrospective comparative study using the Norwegian Patient Register. Readmissions were evaluated by logistic regressions both using adjustment for various patient-level and other covariates, and a two-stage model using distance as an instrumental variable.

settingThe Norwegian healthcare system. POPULATION: All publicly financed patients having primary total hip (37 897 patients) or primary total knee arthroplasty (25 802 patients) at one of the three hospital types from 2009 to 2014. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: 30-day unplanned acute hospital readmission rate.

resultsWe found highest readmission rates among PUBs and lowest among PFPs, for both procedures. However, the patients were on average more than 2 years younger at PFPs. PFPs also treated the least severe patients, while PUBs treated the most severe. Using adjustment for various patient-level and other covariates, compared to PUBs, both PFPs and PNPs had lower odds of readmission following both procedures. However, using the instrumental variable method, the only significant difference found was a lower odds of readmission at PNPs among hip patients when compared with PUBs. No patients in our data set were readmitted to PFPs, those originally treated at PFPs were readmitted to either PNPs or PUBs, and PUBs received most of the readmitted patients across hospital types.

conclusionsQuality differences between hospital types were small; however, PNPs had significantly lower readmission rates compared with PUBs among patients having total hip arthroplasty. PUBs received the larger part of the readmitted patients across hospital types and thus play an essential role in the care of more complex patients and for readmissions, regardless of any quality differences.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOrganizations, NonprofitPatient ReadmissionQuality of Health CareAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHospitals, PrivateHospitals, PublicHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNorwaycase mixHealth outcomes researchprivate hospitalspublic hospitalsreadmission

Identifiers

PMID28821517
PMCPMC5724080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.