bunrab: (Default)
I just finished reading The Surgeons: Life and Death in a Top Heart Center by Charles R. Morris. It's a fascinating book. The hospital in discussion is Columbia-Presbyterian in New York. Morris "embedded" himself there, staying in the cardiac area, attending surgeries sitting in the back near the nurses, attended staff meetings, all that stuff. He opens with a little history of heart surgery and an typical patient. Incidentally, although this is written for a popular audience, he does assume some slight knowledge on the part of the reader - for example, he doesn't stop to define "comorbidity" as in "Like many heart patients, Goldfarb suffers from a variety of comorbidities..." He describes how doctors and nurses "suit up" and create a "sterile field" around the patients, and then pretty much cut-for-cut describes Mr. Goldfarb's heart valve replacement.

He describes the different specializations within cardio-thoracic surgery: it's not just "heart surgeons" in general. There's the bypass specialists, the anesthesiologists, the pacemaker-and-defibrillator surgeons (he doesn't mention it, but in my experience they are usually called electrophysiologists, or EPs), the pediatric specialists.

Of particular interest: the difference between those surgeries in which the patient is put on a heart pump, and "off-pump" surgeries. The various range of outcomes of transplants. He describes a failed pediatric transplant - the patient dies. No avoiding the tough issues. The whole way the transplant process works - he goes along with a "harvest" team to get the heart from a donor, and talks about teams from other hospitals there to harvest other organs from the same donor, and what it's like to have several different teams working on one body.

Also of interest to heart failure patients would be the discussion of the LVAD, and also the chapter on the development of "cath labs" used by cardiologists, which is something different from cardiac surgeons (if you've had an angiogram, you've been in a "cath lab.")

And there's a big section on "The Problem With Drug Companies" and another on how to determine "best practices" as well as some controversial issues about evaluating different studies on various practices and on rating the hospitals.

It's a fascinating book - this barely begins to describe it. He's a good writer, and the book moves right along; we get to know the doctors and nurses as people. He has editorial comment as well as just description of what's going on, and it's useful input for anyone who is following the US's continuing struggle over how we provide health care and to whom.

Interestingly, I also happened, quite accidentally, to recently re-read Lewis Thomas' The Youngest Science: Notes of a Medicine-Watcher and it was interesting to compare his descriptions of medical practices and hospital routines from the 1930's and 1950's to Morris's of half a century later.
bunrab: (Default)
This article mentions a useful web site!
U.S. Health Experts Rate Hospitals' Cardiac Care

June 22 (HealthDay News) -- U.S. health officials have rated the nation's hospitals on their treatment of heart attack and heart failure and found that most meet the national average for quality of care.

Scoring 4,700 centers across the country, experts at the Department of Health and Human Services took into account heart-related death rates as well as the mix of patients at each hospital to come up with their findings. Speaking during a Thursday teleconference, they said most hospitals fell within the national average, although dozens performed either better or worse.

And thanks to a new federal Web site launched Thursday, U.S. consumers can now go online and check their local hospital's performance when it comes to heart care.

"The steps we are taking today mean that patients will have the information they need to make decisions about their own care," Mike Leavitt, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said during an afternoon teleconference.

The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web site, http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov, now lists hospital mortality rates for more than 4,500 U.S. hospitals. The statistics involve deaths from heart attacks and heart failure for Medicare patients who died within 30 days after their hospital stay.

"For the first time, Medicare and the Hospital Quality Alliance are providing the public with information about two important yardsticks of care -- mortality rates for heart attack and heart failure," Leavitt said.

"This is important," Leavitt added, "because for most of its history, Medicare has been paying for services, but not paying for results. The problem with that approach is that it doesn't provide any incentive to improve the quality or lower the cost."

Leavitt noted that in 2006, 36 million people visited the Medicare Web site looking for comparative health information. "When that many people start comparing the quality and cost of health care, the result can only be better care at lower cost," he said.

In terms of its functionality, consumers can go to the Web site and select hospitals, as well as specific criteria of care, to view. Hospitals are rated against the national average for care in each category.

"The information is displayed in three categories: no different from the U.S. national average; better than the U.S. national average; worse than the U.S. national average," Herb Kuhn, acting deputy administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said during the teleconference.

In addition, Kuhn expects that hospitals will use this information to improve their quality of care and patient outcomes. "By bringing this information forward, we can shed a little sunshine and provide a catalyst to push for improvement in health care," he said.

Kuhn said his agency has also contacted local Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) who will work with hospitals that currently have cardiovascular mortality rates that are worse than the national average to help them improve their care.

"We are proud that Medicare officials have turned to the QIOs to address this very serious problem," David Schulke, executive vice president of the American Health Quality Association (AHQA), said in a prepared statement.

"Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has authorized an additional $2,000 per hospital to spend on efforts to help these hospitals," Schulke said. "In many states, it may turn out that this amount is a down payment on the actual work that will be required to identify and change care processes necessary to prevent future deaths," he said.

The agency is also using the Web site to post its first annual update of pricing and volume information on certain elective hospital procedures.


SOURCES: June 21, 2007, teleconference with: Mike Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Herb Kuhn, Acting Deputy Administrator, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; statement, American Health Quality Association
bunrab: (Default)
As I've mentioned before, I get a weekly summary of articles from Medscape Pharmacy. This article is from this week's; I've reprinted the abstract here, but not the whole article.
From Pharmacotherapy

Controversy and Conflict in the Treatment of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Limited Role for Nesiritide

John A. Noviasky, Pharm.D.
Abstract

The use of nesiritide for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) has been clouded with controversy since its approval in 2001. Extensive marketing and many review articles have established this drug as a safe and superior product to current standards. However, its safety has been called into question by the results of a meta-analysis, and its superiority of important outcomes (length of stay, mortality, decreased readmission rate) has never been proved by a randomized trial against agents with similar vasodilator properties (e.g., nitroglycerin). A review of the available literature on nesiritide in the areas of mortality, renal effects, retrospective studies, use in off-label indications, length of stay, and mortality is presented and illustrates why its use should be limited or even eliminated. After review of this article, the reader should be able to answer the question—if nesiritide had never been approved for use in patients with ADHF, would we have missed it?—with a negative reply.


The gist of the whole article is, neseritide appears to increase mortality, rather than decrease it. This includes results from a study done *by the manufacturer* of the drug.

What I wonder is, if all the preliminary studies showed that it was safe and effective, how does it happen now that all the after-approval studies show either no statistically significant effect whatsoever compared to other drugs used for the same purpose (that is, it's no better than older treatments), or else a slight negative effect? Thaat's a rhetorical question, by the way, as we already know that there are a lot of problems with the pharmaceutical approval process in the USA, and that our government agencies are far too heavily influenced by Big Pharma money. The article itself answers the question, pointing out the manufacturer's aggressive marketing campaign, which included a "guide" for hospitals on how billing Medicare for this drug could be more profitable for the hospital than other drugs. 

The EU has not approved this drug, and probably won't, according to the article.
bunrab: (Default)

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Article from local newspaper; see bottom of article to get information on your own local hospital!

Austin area hospitals rated on heart, pneumonia care
Ratings aimed at giving more information to consumers, raising quality of patient care


By Mary Ann Roser

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Austin area hospitals made grades ranging from fair to good for heart attack and heart failure care but generally received poorer marks for pneumonia care under new performance measures now publicly available.

The hospitals voluntarily reported data to the federal government, which posted the results for the first time earlier this month on its Medicare Web site at www.cms.hhs.gov/quality/hospital. The program judges hospitals on how often they followed the best practices for treating three serious conditions: heart attacks, heart failure and pneumonia.

The statistics, from the first three months of 2004, are designed to inform consumers and improve the quality of care.

Seton Medical Center earned the highest scores locally for heart care, doing as well as or better than half of the more than 4,000 U.S. hospitals taking part in the Hospital Quality Initiative. South Austin Hospital, which is part of the St. David's system, scored lower than six other Central Texas hospitals in treating certain aspects of heart attack and heart failure.

Meanwhile, the Georgetown Healthcare System did the best job among nine Central Texas hospitals in pneumonia care and scored in the top half of U.S. hospitals, although not in the top 10 percent.

Austin area hospitals that scored in the bottom half of those surveyed generally attributed their scores to weak documentation -- except in pneumonia care. All agreed they could do better, especially in giving a pneumonia shot to patients.

"What we found out at St. David's is a number of physicians were not documenting what they were doing" for heart patients, such as writing down that an aspirin was given to someone having a heart attack, said Dr. Steve Berkowitz, chief medical officer of the St. David's HealthCare Partnership. "These are process steps. When we look at outcomes, we know we do very well."

South Austin Hospital was listed this year as one of the top 100 hospitals in the United States for cardiovascular care, based on survival rates by Solucient, a health information company.

Seton also made Solucient's top 100 list for cardiovascular care, as did Scott & White in Temple and the Heart Hospital of Austin.

In the new report, based on seven measures for treating heart attack and heart failure, Seton performed better than 90 percent of the nation's hospitals on one measure and in the top half of the hospitals in the country on four other measures. It was just one percentage point below the top 50 percent on two other measures: giving beta blockers to heart attack patients when they come to the hospital and when they leave.

Scott & White scored in the top 50 percent of hospitals on five measures for cardiac care and in the lower half on two others for heart attack treatment: giving aspirin on arrival and departure.

The Heart Hospital scored better than half of U.S. hospitals on three heart attack measures and slightly worse on two. It also scored in the bottom half on the two measures used to gauge care of heart failure patients: assessing the function of the left ventricle and giving a blood-pressure drug for it.

"There should be noticeable improvements between the second and third quarters" of 2004 based on better documentation, said Torje Scott of Heart Hospital.

She said that the Texas Business Group on Health, which also lists hospital performance on its Web site, www.tbgh.org, shows that the Heart Hospital has lower death rates for heart attack and balloon angioplasty than other Austin area hospitals.

Brackenridge Hospital treated fewer heart attack patients but handled heart failure well, scoring in the top 10 percent in one category and close to it in a second.

Scores for St. David's Medical Center and North Austin Medical Center were mixed.

All of the hospitals, except Georgetown, scored in the bottom half of U.S. hospitals in vaccinating pneumonia patients. (Hospitals that treated fewer than 25 patients were not considered; the study said that was too few to be statistically reliable.)

Hospital officials said they had seen that as the responsibility of primary care doctors. Seton hospitals now have stickers to remind doctors and nurses to screen patients for pneumonia vaccination, said Michele Gonzalez, director of media and communications.

Hospitals should look on the measures as an opportunity to improve, and consumers should see them as a "starting point" to compare hospitals and ask questions, said Kevin Warren, director of quality improvement with the Texas Medical Foundation, which contracts with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to promote the information to consumers.

"It's an opportunity for hospitals to benchmark themselves against each other," Warren added. "How do they stack up to the top 10 percent of the hospitals in the country?"

maroser@statesman.com; 445-3619

Get a hospital score

Go to www.cms.hhs.gov/ quality/hospital. To get individual hospital reports, go to the highlights box and click on "data available." On the next page, go to the bottom and "select a state."

Go to city search, choose the city you want and hit "search by city."

Then, select the quality measures you want on the left (all can be selected) and choose a hospital.

The first column shows the results for the top 10 percent of U.S. hospitals surveyed, the second column represents the top half of U.S. hospitals, and the third shows the hospital you chose.

Profile

bunrab: (Default)
bunrab

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 15th, 2025 08:34 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios