Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare maternal outcomes and the home environment between non‑vulnerable families with children under 2 receiving universal home visiting services and vulnerable families receiving sustained home visiting services. METHODS: This study was conducted in Seoul, Korea, where the country’s first nurse‑led early childhood home visiting program was introduced. A total of 551 mother‑child dyads participated in cross‑sectional surveys conducted at various child ages (6±2 weeks, 6±1 months, 12±1 months, and 24±1 months). Universal home visiting services were provided within six weeks postpartum to non‑vulnerable families, while vulnerable families received sustained services consisting of 25 visits over 24 months. Maternal knowledge of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childcare, maternal distress, and the Korean Infant‑Toddler Home Observation for Measurement of Environment (K‑IT‑HOME) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, the universal home visitation group demonstrated higher levels of maternal knowledge regarding SIDS and childcare compared to the sustained home visitation group (all p-values <0.05), while the sustained home visitation group reported higher levels of maternal distress (p<0.001). The total K‑IT‑HOME score was 1.47 points higher in the universal home visitation group than in the sustained home visitation group (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the acceptance, organization, or involvement subscales of the K‑IT‑HOME (all p-values >0.05). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that disparities in maternal outcomes and home environments persisted in early childhood between the sustained and universal home visitation groups.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare maternal outcomes and the home environment between non‑vulnerable families with children under 2 receiving universal home visiting services and vulnerable families receiving sustained home visiting services. METHODS: This study was conducted in Seoul, Korea, where the country’s first nurse‑led early childhood home visiting program was introduced. A total of 551 mother‑child dyads participated in cross‑sectional surveys conducted at various child ages (6±2 weeks, 6±1 months, 12±1 months, and 24±1 months). Universal home visiting services were provided within six weeks postpartum to non‑vulnerable families, while vulnerable families received sustained services consisting of 25 visits over 24 months. Maternal knowledge of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childcare, maternal distress, and the Korean Infant‑Toddler Home Observation for Measurement of Environment (K‑IT‑HOME) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, the universal home visitation group demonstrated higher levels of maternal knowledge regarding SIDS and childcare compared to the sustained home visitation group (all p-values <0.05), while the sustained home visitation group reported higher levels of maternal distress (p<0.001). The total K‑IT‑HOME score was 1.47 points higher in the universal home visitation group than in the sustained home visitation group (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the acceptance, organization, or involvement subscales of the K‑IT‑HOME (all p-values >0.05). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that disparities in maternal outcomes and home environments persisted in early childhood between the sustained and universal home visitation groups.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.