This systematic review examines what factors explain the diversity of findings regarding hospital ownership and quality. We identified 31 observational studies written in English since 1990 that used multivariate analysis to examine quality of care at nonfederal general acute, short-stay US hospitals. We find that pooled estimates of ownership effects are sensitive to the subset of studies included and the extent of overlap among hospitals analyzed in the underlying studies. Ownership does appear to be systematically related to differences in quality among hospitals in several contexts. Whether studies find for-profit and government-controlled hospitals to have higher mortality rates or rates of adverse events than their nonprofit counterparts depends on data sources, time period, and region covered. Policymakers should be aware of the underlying reasons for conflicting evidence in this literature, and the strengths and weaknesses of meta-analytic synthesis. The "true" effect of ownership appears to depend on institutional context, including differences across regions, markets, and over time.

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to develop a pediatric-focused tool for adverse drug event detection and describe the incidence and characteristics of adverse drug events in children's hospitals identified by this tool.

METHODS: A pediatric-specific trigger tool for adverse drug event detection was developed and tested. Eighty patients from each site were randomly selected for retrospective chart review. All adverse drug events identified using the trigger tool were evaluated for severity, preventability, ability to mitigate, ability to identify the event earlier, and presence of associated occurrence report. Each trigger and the entire tool were evaluated for positive predictive value.

RESULTS: Review of 960 randomly selected charts from 12 children's hospitals revealed 2388 triggers (2.49 per patient) and 107 unique adverse drug events. Mean adverse drug event rates were 11.1 per 100 patients, 15.7 per 1000 patient-days, and 1.23 per 1000 medication doses. The positive predictive value of the trigger tool was 3.7%. Twenty-two percent of all adverse drug events were deemed preventable, 17.8% could have been identified earlier, and 16.8% could have been mitigated more effectively. Ninety-seven percent of the identified adverse drug events resulted in mild, temporary harm. Only 3.7% of adverse drug events were identified in existing hospital-based occurrence reports. The most common adverse drug events identified were pruritis and nausea, the most common medication classes causing adverse drug events were opioid analgesics and antibiotics, and the most common stages of the medication management process associated with preventable adverse drug events were monitoring and prescribing/ordering.

CONCLUSIONS: Adverse drug event rates in hospitalized children are substantially higher than previously described. Most adverse drug events resulted in temporary harm, and 22% were classified as preventable. Only 3.7% were identified by using traditional voluntary reporting methods. Our pediatric-focused trigger tool is effective at identifying adverse drug events in inpatient pediatric populations.

OBJECTIVES: Narcotic-related adverse drug events are the most common adverse drug events in hospitalized children. Despite multiple published studies describing interventions that decrease adverse drug events from narcotics, large-scale collaborative quality improvement efforts to address narcotic-related adverse drug events in pediatrics have not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate collaborative-wide narcotic-related adverse drug event rates after a collection of expert panel-defined best practices was implemented.

METHODS: All 42 children's hospitals in the Child Health Corporation of America were invited to participate in the Institute for Healthcare Improvement-style quality improvement collaborative aimed at reducing narcotic-related adverse drug events. A collection of interventions known or suspected to reduce narcotic-related adverse drug events was recommended by an expert panel, with each site implementing >or=1 of these best practices on the basis of local need. Narcotic-related adverse drug event rates were compared between the baseline (December 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005) and postimplementation periods (January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2006) after an a priori-defined intervention ramp-up time (April 1, 2005, and December 31, 2005). Secondary outcome measures included constipation rates and narcotic-related automated drug-dispensing-device override percentages.

RESULTS: Median narcotic-related adverse drug event rates decreased 67% between the baseline and postimplementation time frames across the 14-site collaborative. Constipation rates decreased 68.9%, and automated drug-dispensing-device overrides decreased from 10.18% to 5.91% of all narcotic doses administered.

CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of >or=1 expert panel-recommended interventions at each participating site resulted in a significant decrease in narcotic-related adverse drug events, constipation, and automated drug-dispensing-device overrides in a 12-month, 14-site children's hospital quality collaborative.

This issue of Value in Health presents selected articles from the ISPOR Second Asia Pacific Conference held in Shanghai, March 2006. Under the leadership of ISPOR and the ISPOR Asian Consortium, the ISPOR AsiaPacific Conference is held every two years in Asia with a twofold mission: to help develop knowledge and capacity for health economics and outcomes research (HE/OR) in Asia; and to promote the use of HE/OR in policymaking processes in Asia, with the goal of improving efficiency in the allocation of resources. With "Improving Evidence and Outcomes in Health Care Decision-Making" as the theme, the Second ISPOR Asia-Pacific Conference was well received, achieving an unprecedented level of participation from the Asian communities. All articles included in this issue underwent the usual anonymous process of peer review.

Our study assesses how work-related monetary and nonmonetary factors affect physicians' job satisfaction at three academic medical centers in Germany and the United States, two countries whose differing health care systems experience similar problems in maintaining their physician workforce. We used descriptive statistics and factor and correlation analyses to evaluate physicians' responses to a self-administered questionnaire. Our study revealed that German physician respondents were less satisfied overall than their U.S. counterparts. In both countries, participation in decision making that may affect physicians' work was an important correlate of satisfaction. In Germany other important factors were opportunities for continuing education, job security, extent of administrative work, collegial relationships, and access to specialized technology. In the U.S. sample, job security, financial incentives, interaction with colleagues, and cooperative working relationships with colleagues and management were important predictors of overall job satisfaction. The implications of these findings for the development of policies and management tactics to increase physician job satisfaction in German and U.S. academic medical centers are discussed.