Table 4.

Results for Analysis of Performance Improvement.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	Dependent Variable = Improvement in Phase
	Initial, 2006-2008 (N = 498)	Later, 2008-2010 (N = 474)	Initial, 2006-2008 (N = 498)	Later, 2008-2010 (N = 474)	Model 5
Independent variables		Standardized coefficients			Overall, 2006-2010
Import best practices	.084**	.072	.055	.017	.024
Creative problem solving	.032	.043	.031	.039	.028^
Import best practices × creative problem solving			.048	.095*	.055**
Covariates
Teaching hospital	–.003	–.023	–.005	–.026	–.012
Hospital size: 300-499 beds (reference = beds < 300)	–.012	.041	–.010	.046	.021
Hospital size: beds > 500 (reference = beds < 300)	–.025	.039	–.025	.037	.011
Geographic location: Midwest (reference = Northeast)	.030	.041	.030	.041	.026
Geographic location: South (reference = Northeast)	.025	.095	.024	.095	.050*
Geographic location: West (reference = Northeast)	.046	.037	.046	.037	.031
Ownership: Public/Govt. (reference = for-profit)	–.057*	–.053	–.060*	–.059	–.046*
Ownership: Not-for-profit (reference = for-profit)	–.089**	–.072	–.092**	–.077	–.063**
Net income	.016	.005	.018	.008	.008
Baseline no. of best practices	.094**	.075	.096**	.079	.057*
Baseline performance (2006 or 2008)a	–.896***	–.737	–.898***	–.743	–.947**
Patients with STEMI at follow-up	.061**	.045	.061**	.046	.040*
Managers' performance feedback	–.052*	–.006	–.053*	–.009	–.020
F value	92.10***	19.93***	85.99***	20.20***	220.55***

Note. F values are from ordinary linear regression models, which provided same results. Results (coefficients and significance) are the same when performance rather than improvement is used as the dependent variable.

^aBaseline performance for initial and later phase is door-to-balloon performance in 2006 and 2008, respectively.

^{^}p < .10.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.