Hospitals In 'Magnet' Program Show Better Patient Outcomes On Mortality Measures Compared To Non-'Magnet' Hospitals.
ABSTRACT: Hospital executives pursue external recognition to improve market share and demonstrate institutional commitment to quality of care. The Magnet Recognition Program of the American Nurses Credentialing Center identifies hospitals that epitomize nursing excellence, but it is not clear that receiving Magnet recognition improves patient outcomes. Using Medicare data on patients hospitalized for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, colectomy, or lower extremity bypass in 1998-2010, we compared rates of risk-adjusted thirty-day mortality and failure to rescue (death after a postoperative complication) between Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals matched on hospital characteristics. Surgical patients treated in Magnet hospitals, compared to those treated in non-Magnet hospitals, were 7.7 percent less likely to die within thirty days and 8.6 percent less likely to die after a postoperative complication. Across the thirteen-year study period, patient outcomes were significantly better in Magnet hospitals than in non-Magnet hospitals. However, outcomes did not improve for hospitals after they received Magnet recognition, which suggests that the Magnet program recognizes existing excellence and does not lead to additional improvements in surgical outcomes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although there is evidence that hospitals recognized for nursing excellence--Magnet hospitals--are successful in attracting and retaining nurses, it is uncertain whether Magnet recognition is associated with better patient outcomes than non-Magnets, and if so why. OBJECTIVES:To determine whether Magnet hospitals have lower risk-adjusted mortality and failure-to-rescue compared with non-Magnet hospitals, and to determine the most likely explanations. METHOD AND STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of linked patient, nurse, and hospital data on 56 Magnet and 508 non-Magnet hospitals. Logistic regression models were used to estimate differences in the odds of mortality and failure-to-rescue for surgical patients treated in Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals, and to determine the extent to which differences in outcomes can be explained by nursing after accounting for patient and hospital differences. RESULTS:Magnet hospitals had significantly better work environments and higher proportions of nurses with bachelor's degrees and specialty certification. These nursing factors explained much of the Magnet hospital effect on patient outcomes. However, patients treated in Magnet hospitals had 14% lower odds of mortality (odds ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P=0.02) and 12% lower odds of failure-to-rescue (odds ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.01; P=0.07) while controlling for nursing factors as well as hospital and patient differences. CONCLUSIONS:The lower mortality we find in Magnet hospitals is largely attributable to measured nursing characteristics but there is a mortality advantage above and beyond what we could measure. Magnet recognition identifies existing quality and stimulates further positive organizational behavior that improves patient outcomes.
Project description:The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between Magnet RecognitionA and nurse-reported quality of care.MagnetA hospitals are recognized for nursing excellence and quality patient outcomes; however, few studies have explored contributing factors for these superior outcomes.This was a secondary analysis of linked nurse survey data, hospital administrative data, and a listing of American Nurses Credentialing Center Magnet hospitals. Multivariate regressions were modeled before and after propensity score matching to assess the relationship between Magnet status and quality of care. A mediation model assessed the indirect effect of the professional practice environment on quality of care.Nurse-reported quality of care was significantly associated with Magnet Recognition after matching. The professional practice environment mediates the relationship between Magnet status and quality of care.A prominent feature of Magnet hospitals, a professional practice environment that is supportive of nursing, plays a role in explaining why Magnet hospitals have better nurse-reported quality of care.
Project description:Access disparities to centers of excellence can have detrimental consequences for population health. We investigated the presence of racial disparities in the access of stroke patients to hospitals recognized by the Magnet Recognition Program of the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC). We performed a cohort study of all ischemic stroke patients who were registered in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database from 2009 to 2013. We examined the association of African-American race with Magnet status hospitalization after ischemic stroke. A mixed effects propensity adjusted multivariable regression analysis was used to control for confounding. During the study period, 176,557 patients presented with ischemic stroke, and met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 4,624 (13.7%) African-Americans, and 27,468 (19.2%) non African-Americans with ischemic stroke were admitted to Magnet hospitals. Using a multivariable logistic regression, we demonstrate that African-Americans were associated with lower admission rates to Magnet institutions (OR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.68-0.73) (Table 2). This persisted in a mixed effects logistic regression model (OR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78) to adjust for clustering at the county level, and a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model (OR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.90). Using a comprehensive all-payer cohort of ischemic stroke patients in New York State we identified an association of African-American race with lower rates of admission to Magnet hospitals.
Project description:Centers of excellence focusing on quality improvement have demonstrated superior outcomes for a variety of surgical interventions. We investigated the presence of access disparities to hospitals recognized by the Magnet Recognition Program of the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) for patients undergoing neurosurgical operations.We performed a cohort study of all neurosurgery patients who were registered in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database from 2009 to 2013. We examined the association of African-American race and lack of insurance with Magnet status hospitalization for neurosurgical procedures. A mixed effects propensity adjusted multivariable regression analysis was used to control for confounding.During the study period, 190,535 neurosurgical patients met the inclusion criteria. Using a multivariable logistic regression, we demonstrate that African-Americans had lower admission rates to Magnet institutions (OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.67). This persisted in a mixed effects logistic regression model (OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83) to adjust for clustering at the patient county level, and a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model (OR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.82). Additionally, lack of insurance was associated with lower admission rates to Magnet institutions (OR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.73), in a multivariable logistic regression model. This persisted in a mixed effects logistic regression model (OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.74), and a propensity score adjusted logistic regression model (OR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75).Using a comprehensive all-payer cohort of neurosurgery patients in New York State we identified an association of African-American race and lack of insurance with lower rates of admission to Magnet hospitals.
Project description:Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) are among the deadliest heathcare-associated infections, with an estimated 12-25% mortality rate. In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began to penalize hospitals for poor performance with respect to selected hospital-acquired conditions, including CLABSI. A structural factor associated with high-quality nursing care and better patient outcomes is The Magnet Recognition Program®. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Magnet status and hospital CLABSI rates. We used propensity score matching to match Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals with similar hospital characteristics. In a matched sample of 291 Magnet hospitals and 291 non-Magnet hospitals, logistic regression models were used to examine whether there was a link between Magnet status and CLABSI rates. Both before and after matching, Magnet hospital status was associated with better (lower than the national average) CLABSI rates (OR = 1.60, 95%CI: 1.10, 2.33 after matching). While established programs such as Magnet recognition are consistently correlated with high-quality nursing work environments and positive patient outcomes, additional research is needed to determine whether Magnet designation produces positive patient outcomes or rewards existing excellence.
Project description:Care quality continues to be a focal point within US health care. One quality innovation is the Magnet recognition program for hospitals, which is a nurse-driven initiative emphasizing care and patient-safety improvements. To date, Magnet hospitals have been associated with better outcomes, but their distribution is highly uneven. Relatedly, little research has characterized what factors drive Magnet adoption (eg, competitive pressure from other hospitals).To examine if hospitals respond to more competing hospitals becoming Magnets by also becoming Magnet institutions.We use longitudinal data from the American Hospital Association, 1997-2012, and estimate hospital-level fixed-effect regressions to capture the association between Magnet adoption among competitors and a hospital's own likelihood of becoming a Magnet. We also explore heterogeneity in the relationships according to a hospital's standing within its market.Having more competitors become Magnets strongly predicts that a given hospital seeks Magnet recognition; yet, a hospital's market position and prevailing competition levels are moderating influences.A large literature links Magnet hospitals with better outcomes for patients and nurses, and more recent evidence suggests a business case for becoming a Magnet. We find evidence that hospitals seem motivated by competitive pressure, which suggests economic considerations in the decision to invest in costly care improvements.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>It is not clear whether Magnet recognition by the American Nurses Credentialing Center (nursing excellence program) is associated with improved patient outcomes. We investigated whether hospitalization in a Magnet hospital is associated with improved outcomes for patients with ischemic stroke.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We performed a cohort study of patients with ischemic stroke from 2009 to 2013, who were registered in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Propensity-score-adjusted multivariable regression models were used to adjust for known confounders, with mixed effects methods to control for clustering at the facility level. An instrumental variable analysis was used to control for unmeasured confounding and simulate the effect of a randomized trial. During the study period, 176 557 patients were admitted for ischemic stroke, and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 32 092 (18.2%) were hospitalized in Magnet hospitals, and 144 465 (81.8%) in non-Magnet institutions. Instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that hospitalization in Magnet hospitals was associated with lower case-fatality (adjusted difference, -23.9%; 95% CI, -29.0% to -18.7%), length of stay (adjusted difference, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.8 to -0.1), and rate of discharge to a facility (adjusted difference, -16.5%; 95% CI, -20.0% to -13.0%) in comparison to non-Magnet hospitals. The same associations were present in propensity-score-adjusted mixed effects models.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Using a comprehensive all-payer cohort of patients with ischemic stroke in New York State, we identified an association of treatment in Magnet hospitals with lower case-fatality, discharge to a facility, and length of stay. Further research into the factors contributing to the superiority of Magnet hospitals in stroke care is warranted.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Evidence suggests that Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals differ with respect to quality of care.<h4>Purpose</h4>Our study examined registered nurse (RN) staffing over time in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals using unit-level, publicly available data in New Jersey.<h4>Methods</h4>A secondary analysis of longitudinal RN staffing data was conducted using mandated, publicly reported data of 64 hospitals representing 12 nursing specialties across 8 years (2008-2015). Staffing ratios were trended over time to compare RN staffing changes in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals.<h4>Results</h4>Staffing was comparable in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals for 9 of 12 specialties. On average, from 2008 until 2015, RN staffing slightly increased, with a greater percent increase in Magnet hospitals (6.9%) than in non-Magnet hospitals (4.7%).<h4>Conclusions</h4>Over 8 years in New Jersey, RN staffing improved in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. Although there was a slight increase for Magnet hospitals, there was no meaningful difference in staffing for all 12 specialties.
Project description:To examine the relationship between Magnet recognition, an indicator of nursing excellence, and patients' experience with their hospitalization reported in the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.This secondary analysis includes cross-sectional data from the 2010 HCAHPS survey, the American Hospital Association, and the American Nurses Credentialing Center.We conducted a retrospective observational study.Using common hospital identifiers, we created a matched set of 212 Magnet hospitals and 212 non-Magnet hospitals.Patients in Magnet hospitals gave their hospitals higher overall ratings, were more likely to recommend their hospital, and reported more positive care experiences with nurse communication.Magnet recognition is associated with better patient care experiences, which may positively enhance reimbursement for hospitals.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The association of Magnet hospital status with improved surgical outcomes remains an issue of debate.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether hospitalization in a Magnet hospital is associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing neurosurgical operations.<h4>Methods</h4>A cohort study was executed using all patients undergoing neurosurgical operations in New York registered in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database from 2009 to 2013. We examined the association of Magnet status hospitalization after neurosurgical operations with inpatient case fatality and length of stay (LOS). We employed an instrumental variable analysis to simulate a randomized trial.<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 190 787 patients underwent neurosurgical operations. Of these, 68 046 (35.7%) were hospitalized in Magnet hospitals, and 122 741 (64.3%) in non-Magnet institutions. Instrumental variable analysis demonstrated that hospitalization in Magnet hospitals was associated with decreased case fatality (adjusted difference, -0.8%; -95% confidence interval, -0.7% to -0.6%), and LOS (adjusted difference, -1.9; 95% confidence interval, -2.2 to -1.5) in comparison to non-Magnet hospitals. These associations were also observed in propensity score adjusted mixed effects models. These associations persisted in prespecified subgroups of patients undergoing spine surgery, craniotomy for tumor resection, or neurovascular interventions.<h4>Conclusion</h4>We identified an association of Magnet hospitals with lower case fatality, and shorter LOS in a comprehensive New York State patient cohort undergoing neurosurgical procedures.