ArticleHealth services research2021
Evaluating inpatient adverse outcomes under California's Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program.
Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence on the effectiveness of value-based payment schemes implemented in a hospital setting: A systematic review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Review
- Evaluating inpatient adverse outcomes under California's Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program.Health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe California Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program (DSRIP) provided incentive payments to Designated Public Hospitals (DPHs) to improve quality of care. We assessed the program's impact on reductions in sepsis mortality, central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), venous thromboembolisms (VTEs), and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs). DATA SOURCES: We used 2009-2014 discharge data from California hospitals. STUDY
designWe used a pre-post study design with a comparison group. We constructed propensity scores and used them to assign inverse probability weights according to their similarity to DPH discharges. Interaction term coefficients of time trends and treatment group provided significance testing. DATA EXTRACTION: We used Patient Safety Indicators for CLABSI, HAPU, and VTE, and constructed a sepsis mortality measure. PRINCIPAL
findingsDischarges from DPHs and non-DPHs both saw decreases in the four outcomes over the DSRIP period (2010-2014). The difference-in-difference estimator (DD) for sepsis was only significant during two time periods, comparing 2010 with 2012 (DD: -2.90 percent, 95% CI: -5.08, -0.72 percent) and 2010 with 2014 (DD: -5.74, 95% CI: -8.76 percent, -2.72 percent); the DD estimator was not significant comparing 2010 with 2012 (DD: -1.30, 95% CI: -3.18 percent, 0.58 percent) or comparing 2010 with 2013 (DD: -3.05 percent, 95% CI: -6.50 percent, 0.40 percent). For CLABSI, we did not find any meaningful differences between DPHs and non-DPHs across the four time periods. For HAPU and VTE, the only significant DD estimator compared 2014 with 2010.
conclusionsWe did not find that DPHs participating in DSRIP outperformed non-DPHs during the DSRIP program. Our results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. Given multiple concurrent inpatient safety initiatives, it was challenging to assign improvements over time periods to DSRIP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.