Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33184854›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2021

Evaluating national trends in outcomes after implementation of a star rating system: Results from dialysis facility compare.

Stephen Salerno, Claudia Dahlerus, Joseph Messana, Karen Wisniewski, Lan Tong, Richard A Hirth, Jordan Affholter, Garrett Gremel, YiFan Wu, Ji Zhu and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The impact of rural status on pediatric chronic kidney disease.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  3. Medicare advantage and dialysis facility choice.Health services research · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors.

Stephen SalernoKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2763-0494
Claudia DahlerusKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Joseph MessanaKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Karen WisniewskiKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Lan TongKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Richard A HirthKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jordan AffholterKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Garrett GremelKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
YiFan WuKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Ji ZhuKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Jesse RoachThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Elena Balovlenkov RnThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Joel AndressThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Yi LiKidney Epidemiology and Cost Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine which factors are driving improvement in the Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) star ratings and to test whether nonclinical facility characteristics are associated with observed longitudinal changes in the star ratings. DATA SOURCES: Data were collected from eligible patients in over 6,000 Medicare-certified dialysis facilities from three annual star rating and individual measure updates, publicly released on DFC in October 2015, October 2016, and April 2018. STUDY

designChanges in the star rating and individual quality measures were investigated across three public data releases. Year-to-year changes in the star ratings were linked to facility characteristics, adjusting for baseline differences in quality measure performance. DATA COLLECTION: Data from publicly reported quality measures, including standardized mortality, hospitalization, and transfusion ratios, dialysis adequacy, type of vascular access for dialysis, and management of mineral and bone disease, were extracted from annual DFC data releases. PRINCIPAL

findingsThe proportion of four- and five-star facilities increased from 30.0% to 53.4% between October 2015 and April 2018. Quality improvement was driven by the domain of care containing the dialysis adequacy and hypercalcemia measures. Additionally, independently owned facilities and facilities belonging to smaller dialysis organizations had significantly lower odds of year-to-year improvement than facilities belonging to either of the two large dialysis organizations (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.736, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.631-0.856 and OR: 0.797, 95% CI: 0.723-0.879, respectively).

conclusionsThe percentage of four- and five-star facilities has increased markedly over a three-year time period. These changes were driven by improvement in the specific quality measures that may be most directly under the control of the dialysis facility.

Indexed as

AgedBenchmarkingFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMedicareQuality Indicators, Health CareQuality of Health CareRenal DialysisUnited Statesdialysismedicarepublic reportingquality measuresstar ratings

Identifiers

PMID33184854
PMCPMC7839641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.