Care of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in academic medical centers: A community-based comparison

Abstract

Background and Aims: A common perception among purchasers is that academic medical centers are inefficient and overutilize technology; however, little empirical information exists. The aim of this study was to compare treatment and outcomes of patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage admitted to major teaching hospitals and other hospitals in a large metropolitan area. Methods: Data on 3801 consecutive eligible patients admitted to five major teaching hospitals and 25 other hospitals from 1991 to 1993 were obtained by review of medical records. Admission severity of illness was measured using validated multivariable models. Results: Rates of upper endoscopy were somewhat lower among the 1004 patients discharged from fellowship hospitals, compared with the other 2797 patients (82.9% vs. 85.6%; P < 0.05), and the use of other procedures was similar. Although patients admitted to fellowship hospitals tended to have a higher severity of illness, both unadjusted (6.3 ± 9.0 vs. 7.1 ± 7.5 days; P < 0.01) and risk-adjusted length of stay were somewhat shorter. Mortality rates were similar between hospitals, and patients admitted to fellowship hospitals were somewhat less likely to be transfused. Conclusions: In patients with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage, teaching hospitals do not appear to provide inefficient care or overutilize expensive treatments when compared with community facilities. These findings are noteworthy at a time when viability of academic centers and fellowship training is threatened.