The Hospital Study of the City of Houston and Harris County

In 1941 the Texas Legislature appropriated $500,000 to the Board of Regents of the University of Texas to establish a cancer research hospital. The M. D. Anderson Foundation offered to match the appropriation with a grant of an equal sum and to provide a permanent site in Houston. In August, 1942 the Board of Regent of the University and the Trustees of the Foundation signed an agreement to embark on this project. This institution was to be the first one in the medical center, which was incorporated in October, 1945. The Board of Trustees of the Texas Medical Center commissioned a hospital survey to: - Define the needed hospital facilities in the area - Outline an integrated program to meet these needs - Define the facilities to be constructed - Prepare general recommendations for efficient progress The Hospital Study included information about population, hospitals, and other health care and education facilities in Houston and Harris County at that time. It included projected health care needs for future populations, education needs, and facility needs. It also included detailed information on needs for chronic illnesses, a school of public health, and nursing education. This study provides valuable information about the general population and the state of medicine in Houston and Harris County in the 1940s. It gives a unique perspective on the anticipated future as civic leaders looked forward in building the city and region. This document is critical to an understanding of the Texas Medical Center, Houston and medicine as they are today. SECTIONS INCLUDE: Abstract The Abstract was a summary of the 400 page document including general information about the survey area, community medical assets, and current and projected medical needs which the Texas Medical Center should meet. The 123 recommendations were both general (e.g., 12. “That in future planning, the present auxiliary department of the larger hospitals be considered inadequate to carry an added teaching research program of any sizable scope.”) and specific (e.g., 22. That 14.3% of the total acute bed requirement be allotted for obstetric care, reflecting a bed requirement of 522 by 1950, increasing to 1,173 by 1970.”) Section I: Survey Area This section basically addressed the first objective of the survey: “define the needed hospital facilities in the area.” Based on the admission statistics of hospitals, Harris County was included in the survey, with the recognition that growth from out-lying regional areas could occur. Population characteristics and vital statistics were included, with future trends discussed. Each of the hospitals in the area and government and private health organizations, such as the City-County Welfare Board, were documented. Statistics on the facilities use and capacity were given. Eighteen recommendations and observations on the survey area were given. Section II: Community Program This section basically addressed the second objective of the survey: “outline an integrated program to meet these needs.” The information from the Survey Area section formed the basis of the plans for development of the Texas Medical Center. In this section, specific needs, such as what medical specialties were needed, the location and general organization of a medical center, and the academic aspects were outlined. Seventy-four recommendations for these plans were provided. Section III: The Texas Medical Center The third and fourth objectives are addressed. The specific facilities were listed and recommendations were made. Section IV: Special Studies: Chronic Illness The five leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer, “apoplexy”, nephritis, and tuberculosis) were identified and statistics for morbidity and mortality provided. Diagnostic, prevention and care needs were discussed. Recommendations on facilities and other solutions were made. Section IV: Special Studies: School of Public Health An overview of the state of schools of public health in the US was provided. Information on the direction and need of this special school was also provided. Recommendations on development and organization of the proposed school were made. Section IV: Special Studies: Needs and Education Facilities for Nurses Nursing education was connected with hospitals, but the changes to academic nursing programs were discussed. The needs for well-trained nurses in an expanded medical environment were anticipated to result in significant increased demands of these professionals. An overview of the current situation in the survey area and recommendations were provided. Appendix A Maps, tables and charts provide background and statistical information for the previous sections. Appendix B Detailed census data for specific areas of the survey area in the report were included. Sketches of each of the fifteen hospitals and five other health institutions showed historical information, accreditations, staff, available facilities (beds, x-ray, etc.), academic capabilities and financial information.

An evaluation of the centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Acquired Conditions and Present on Admission Indicator Reporting program

Objective: This dissertation evaluated three aspects of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Hospital Acquired Conditions and Present on Admission Indicator Reporting program (HACPOA program) to produce three journal articles for publication. ^ Methods: All payer admission records from state inpatient databases from Arizona, New Jersey and Washington states were analyzed for the year 2008. However some analyses required a sample of adult only Medicare patients in the first two studies. California's inpatient data (2004 – 2010) was also analyzed in the third study to examine the reporting and non-payment program elements' impact on the incidence of hospital acquired conditions. ^ Results: Majority diagnoses reported in inpatient prospective payment systems hospitals were present on admission. However, some diagnoses are still coded as "not present on admission" and "insufficient documentation to determine whether or not conditions are present on admission or not". This is important because it reveals that hospital complications still occur in hospitals. Hospital fall and trauma injuries were the most common hospital acquired conditions observed in this study. Predictors of hospital fall injuries include age, gender, number of diagnoses, number of procedures, number of chronic conditions while predictors of hospital trauma injuries include number of e-codes, number of diagnoses and the presence of chronic conditions on a patient's admission records. Finally, the implementation of the present on admission reporting requirement increased reports of certain hospital acquired conditions while the non-payment policy element in the Hospital Acquired Conditions program reduced the incidence of hospital fall and trauma injuries in particular. ^ Conclusion: The implementation of the Hospital Acquired Conditions and Present on Admission Indicator Reporting program has made the state inpatient database a more useful source of data capable of now identifying hospital complications. The reporting and nonpayment program elements in the HACPOA program have also impacted the incidence of hospital acquired conditions. ^

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^