IMR Press / CEOG / Volume 36 / Issue 3 / pii/1630635718248-2128655938

Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology (CEOG) is published by IMR Press from Volume 47 Issue 1 (2020). Previous articles were published by another publisher on a subscription basis, and they are hosted by IMR Press on as a courtesy and upon agreement with S.O.G.

Original Research
Analysis of federal process of care data reported from hospitals in rural westernmost North Carolina
Show Less
1 Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland/The Sims Institute, Dublin (Ireland)
2 Department of Mathematics, Vassar College; Poughkeepsie, NY
3 MVP Healthcare; Fishkill, NY
4 MagnaCare Holdings Inc.; New York, NY (USA)
Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009, 36(3), 160–162;
Published: 10 September 2009

Objective: To evaluate standardized process of care data collected on selected hospitals serving a remote, rural section of westernmost North Carolina. Materials & Methods: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data were retrospectively analyzed for 21 clinical parameters at Fannin Regional Hospital (FRH), Murphy Medical Center (MMC), and Union General Hospital (UGH). A binomial test was used to compare each study site to state (NC) and national (USA) average. Results: Summary data showed FRH to have higher scores on a significant number of standardized clinical process of care measures compared to state (p < 0.05) and national (p < 0.005) averages. Too few process of care measures at UGH were significantly higher than state and national averages to conclude that differences were not due to Type I error. Similarly, at MMC too few process of care measures were significantly higher than national averages to conclude that observed differences were not attributable to Type I error. MMC did not achieve a significantly higher score on any process of care measure when compared to state averages. Conclusion: Despite limitations associated with summary data analysis, the CMS “Hospitals Compare” information suggests that process of care scores at FRH are significantly higher than the state and national average. As these hospital quality data are freely available to patients, it remains to be determined what impact this may have on hospital volume and/or market share in this region. Additional research is planned to identify process of care trends in this geographical area.
Hospital quality
Process of care
Rural health
North Carolina
Back to top