Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 6.
Published in final edited form as: Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2017 Mar 17;17(4):177–186. doi: 10.1177/1527154417698144

Table 3.

Effect of Magnet Recognition on VBP Outcomes, Before and After Matching.

Before matching After matching


VBP outcomes Unadjusted Coefficient (95% CI) Adjusted for hospital characteristics Coefficient (95% CI) VBP outcomes Unadjusted Coefficient (95% CI) Adjusted for hospital characteristics Coefficient (95% CI)
Total performance score (N=3,021) −1.13 (−2.57, 0.31) 2.73*** (1.27, 4.18) Total performance score (N=576) 1.60* (0.05, 3.14) 1.66* (0.17, 3.16)
Domain scores Domain scores
 Clinical process (N=2,906) 3.37** (1.03, 5.72) 3.61** (1.10, 6.11)  Clinical process (N=575) 3.53* (0.78, 6.28) 3.85** (1.10, 6.61)
 Patient experience (N=2,990) 0.93 (−1.43, 3.29) 7.11*** (4.86, 9.36)  Patient experience (N=573) 6.03*** (3.44, 8.61) 6.33*** (3.86, 8.80)
 Outcomea (N=2,720) 1.66 (−0.49, 3.81) 1.66 (−0.66, 3.98)  Outcomea (N=572) 0.08 (−2.86, 3.01) −0.05 (−3.01, 2.90)
 Efficiencyb (N=3,012) −1 09*** (−1.40, -0.77) −0.32 (−0.66, 0.03)  Efficiencyb (N=575) −0.45* (−0.87, −0.02) −0.38 (−0.83, 0.07)

Note. Adjusted for hospital size, profit status, technology status, teaching status, CBSA type, CMI: case-mix index; HHI: Herfindahl-Hirschman index.

a

Outcome domain excludes adjustment for CMI.

b

Percent of hospitals performing better than the national average on the Efficiency Domain.

*

p <.05.

**

p <.01.

***

p <.001.