Treatment Adequacy for HIV-related Pneumocystis Pneumonia

Quality Measures for Inpatient Care

Published in: International Journal for Quality in Health Care, v. 9, no. 5, Nov. 1997, p. 349-359

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 1997

by W. Christopher Mathews, David E. Kanouse

Read More

Access further information on this document at International Journal for Quality in Health Care

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

To develop and evaluate severity-adjusted indicators of treatment timeliness and adequacy for inpatient care of first episode of HIV-related pneumocystis pneumonia, a retrospective cohort study (n=414) using medical record review was conducted in six California medical centers (1 January 1983-30 June 1987). Measures included patient baseline characteristics and complexity, process-of-care indicators (delay in treatment initiation and proportion of adequate treatment delivered), and overall survival of hospitalization and survival without respiratory failure. Logistic regression models of severity were developed among optimally treated patients and cross-validated. Exposure to medication with pneumocystis activity within 30 days prior to admission was protective. After controlling for pre-admission medication and severity, the average proportion of adequate pneumocystis medication delivered during the first 7 and 30 days were significant predictors of outcome in all models. Delay in treatment initiation, while not a statistically significant predictor, was associated with baseline severity. Summary measures of treatment adequacy show promise as process-of-care indicators.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.