An examination of Leapfrog safety measures and Magnet designation

Abstract

AbstractLeapfrog Hospital Safety Grades and Magnet designation are two publicly available measures that serve as proxies for health care quality and safety. We examine whether hospitals with a better rating in one Leapfrog safety measure also have favorable ratings in other Leapfrog safety measures and whether Magnet‐designated hospitals have better Leapfrog safety scores related to outcomes, processes, and structures than non‐Magnet hospitals. Our study found that hospital‐associated infections (HAIs) were not strongly correlated with one another, but Leapfrog safety process and structural measures were significantly and strongly correlated with one another, suggesting hospitals that invest in processes/structures to improve quality tend to do so across many dimensions. Also, Magnet‐designated hospitals had higher Leapfrog grades for structural measures but not systematically better infection rates. Only one HAI (central line‐associated bloodstream infections) had lower rates in Magnet hospitals than non‐Magnet hospitals. These analyses suggest that improvements in process and structural measures do not necessarily translate into lower HAIs. Hospitals may need specific quality improvement strategies to target each HAI since HAIs are not strongly correlated with one another. Future research is needed to identify what process and structural measures can decrease HAIs and how this should be reflected in Magnet designation evaluation criteria.