IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v50y2000i1p77-88.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hospital credentialing and quality of care

Author

Listed:
  • Sloan, Frank A
  • Conover, Christopher J
  • Provenzale, Dawn

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of hospital credentialing standards on surgical outcomes for selected procedures. The study used hospital credentialing practices from a 1996 survey of North Carolina community hospitals, with surgical outcomes derived from a statewide database of inpatient surgical discharges in 1995. Hospital mortality, complications and elevated lengths of stay were used as outcome indicators in an analysis of 6 surgical procedures. Multivariate logit analysis was used to calculate the effects of hospital credentialing stringency and nine credentialing practices on outcomes, controlling for patient demographic characteristics, type of admission, severity of illness and hospital characteristics. Teaching hospitals adopted more stringent credentialing practices, with almost no difference between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan nonteaching facilities in their use of various credentialing policies. Surgical outcomes typically were not related to stringency of the hospital credentialing environment. Generally, the effect of specific practices was inconsistent (associated with improved outcomes for certain procedures and significantly worse outcomes for others) or counterintuitive (showing worse outcomes for selected surgical procedures where effects were statistically significant). More stringent hospital credentialing does not appear likely to improve patient outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Sloan, Frank A & Conover, Christopher J & Provenzale, Dawn, 2000. "Hospital credentialing and quality of care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 77-88, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:1:p:77-88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00269-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:1:p:77-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.