An analysis of the RightCare policy at Ben Taub General Hospital, Houston, Texas

Introduction. This study is a two-part evaluation of the RightCare policy, a policy implemented to reduce crowding at the Emergency Center (EC) at Ben Taub General Hospital in Houston, Harris County, Texas. This research includes an evaluation of the policy's impact on specific hospital measures, along with a description of the policy's demise from the point of view of hospital staff. Objective. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) To determine whether RightCare policy affected the level of crowding in the Emergency Center and (2) to identify the conditions that may have led to the policy's demise. Methods. For the policy impact portion of this research, hospital measures were collected from existing databases. Analysis included a pre-post comparative design in which the 12 months preceding the policy's implementation were compared with the 12 months following the policy's implementation. For the policy perception portion, employees were surveyed using an on-line questionnaire. Results. The results of the study are mixed. Some measures improved, including time spent on ambulance diversion and the proportion of those who left without being seen, while others did not, such as return visits and total length of stay. Employees generally supported the policy, but expressed concerns over insufficient training and funding. Conclusion. The RightCare policy was a good initial attempt to improve crowded conditions in the EC. The study showed that a clearer policy design, improved training, adequate staffing levels, and better communication would improve operational outcomes in the future.^

The determinants of improvements in health outcomes and of cost reduction in hospital inpatient care

This study aims to address two research questions. First, ‘Can we identify factors that are determinants both of improved health outcomes and of reduced costs for hospitalized patients with one of six common diagnoses?’ Second, ‘Can we identify other factors that are determinants of improved health outcomes for such hospitalized patients but which are not associated with costs?’ The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2003 to 2006 was employed in this study. The total study sample consisted of hospitals which had at least 30 patients each year for the given diagnosis: 954 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 1552 hospitals for congestive heart failure (CHF), 1120 hospitals for stroke (STR), 1283 hospitals for gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GIH), 979 hospitals for hip fracture (HIP), and 1716 hospitals for pneumonia (PNE). This study used simultaneous equations models to investigate the determinants of improvement in health outcomes and of cost reduction in hospital inpatient care for these six common diagnoses. In addition, the study used instrumental variables and two-stage least squares random effect model for unbalanced panel data estimation. The study concluded that a few factors were determinants of high quality and low cost. Specifically, high specialty was the determinant of high quality and low costs for CHF patients; small hospital size was the determinant of high quality and low costs for AMI patients. Furthermore, CHF patients who were treated in Midwest, South, and West region hospitals had better health outcomes and lower hospital costs than patients who were treated in Northeast region hospitals. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage and pneumonia patients who were treated in South region hospitals also had better health outcomes and lower hospital costs than patients who were treated in Northeast region hospitals. This study found that six non-cost factors were related to health outcomes for a few diagnoses: hospital volume, percentage emergency room admissions for a given diagnosis, hospital competition, specialty, bed size, and hospital region.^

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.

Hospital district viability and Medicaid /market changes

Hospital districts (HD) that serve the uninsured and the needy face new challenges with the implementation of Medicaid managed. The potential loss of Medicaid patients and revenues may affect the ability to cost-shift and subsequently decrease the ability of the HD to meet its legal obligation of providing care for the uninsured. ^ To investigate HD viability in the current market, the aims of this study were to: (1) describe HD's environment, (2) document the HDs strategic response, (3) document changes in the HD's performance (patient volume) and financial status, and (4) determine whether relationships or trends exist between HD strategy, performance and financial status. ^ To achieve these aims, three Texas HDs (Fort Worth, Lubbock, and San Antonio) were selected to be evaluated. For each HD four types of strategic responses were documented and evaluated for change. In addition, the ability of each HD to sustain operations was evaluated by documenting performance and financial status changes (patient volume and financial ratios). A pre-post case study design method was used in which the Medicaid managed care “rollout'” date, at each site, was the central date. First, a descriptive analysis was performed which documented the environment, strategy, financial status, and patient volume of each hospital district. Second, to compare hospital districts, each hospital district was: (i) classified by a risk index, (ii) classified by its strategic response profile, and (iii) given a performance score based upon pre-post changes in patient volume and financial indicators. ^ Results indicated that all three HDs operate in a high risk environment compared to the rest of the nation. Two HDs chose the “Status Quo” response whereas one HD chose the “Competitive Proactive” response. Medicaid patient volume decreased in two of three HDs whereas indigent patient volume increased in two of the three (an indication of increasing financial risk). Total patient revenues for all HDs increased over the study period; however, the rate of increase slowed for all three after the Medicaid rollout date. All HDs experienced a decline in financial status between pre-post periods with the greatest decline observed in the HD that saw the greatest increase in indigent patient volume. ^ The pre-post case study format used and the lack of control study sites do not allow for assignment of causality. However, the results suggest possible adverse effects of Medicaid managed care and the need for a larger study, based on a stronger evaluation research design. ^