Dataset Information

Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery.

ABSTRACT: To assess the value of a novel composite measure for identifying the best hospitals for major procedures.We used national Medicare data for patients undergoing five high-risk surgical procedures between 2005 and 2008.For each procedure, we used empirical Bayes techniques to create a composite measure combining hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality with the procedure of interest, risk-adjusted mortality with other related procedures, and other variables. Hospitals were ranked based on 2005-2006 data and placed in one of three groups: 1-star (bottom 20 percent), 2-star (middle 60 percent), and 3-star (top 20 percent). We assessed how well these ratings forecasted risk-adjusted mortality rates in the next 2 years (2007-2008), compared to other measures.For all five procedures, the composite measures based on 2005-2006 data performed well in predicting future hospital performance. Compared to 1-star hospitals, risk-adjusted mortality was much lower at 3-star hospitals for esophagectomy (6.7 versus 14.4 percent), pancreatectomy (4.7 versus 9.2 percent), coronary artery bypass surgery (2.6 versus 5.0 percent), aortic valve replacement (4.5 versus 8.5 percent), and percutaneous coronary interventions (2.4 versus 4.1 percent). Compared to individual surgical quality measures, the composite measures were better at forecasting future risk-adjusted mortality. These measures also outperformed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare ratings.Composite measures of surgical quality are very effective at predicting hospital mortality rates with major procedures. Such measures would be more informative than existing quality indicators in helping patients and payers identify high-quality hospitals with specific procedures.

SUBMITTER: Dimick JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3448279 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery.

Dimick Justin B JB Staiger Douglas O DO Osborne Nicholas H NH Nicholas Lauren H LH Birkmeyer John D JD

Health services research 20120330 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the value of a novel composite measure for identifying the best hospitals for major procedures.<h4>Data source</h4>We used national Medicare data for patients undergoing five high-risk surgical procedures between 2005 and 2008.<h4>Study design</h4>For each procedure, we used empirical Bayes techniques to create a composite measure combining hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality with the procedure of interest, risk-adjusted mortality with other related procedures, a ...[more]

PMID: 22985030

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Hospital Compare star rating and surgical case volume have been publicized as metrics that can help patients to identify high-quality hospitals for complex care such as cancer surgery. The current study evaluates the relationship between the CMS' star rating, surgical volume, and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. METHODS:National Medicare data were used to evaluate the relationship between hospital star ratings and cancer surgery volume quintiles. Then, multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the association between cancer surgery outcomes and both star rankings and surgical volumes. Lastly, a graphical approach was used to compare how well star ratings and surgical volume predicted cancer surgery outcomes. RESULTS:This study identified 365,752 patients undergoing major cancer surgery for 1 of 9 cancer types at 2,550 hospitals. Star rating was not associated with surgical volume (P?<?.001). However, both the star rating and surgical volume were correlated with 4 short-term cancer surgery outcomes (mortality, complication rate, readmissions, and prolonged length of stay). The adjusted predicted probabilities for 5- and 1-star hospitals were 2.3% and 4.5% for mortality, 39% and 48% for complications, 10% and 15% for readmissions, and 8% and 16% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. The adjusted predicted probabilities for hospitals with the highest and lowest quintile cancer surgery volumes were 2.7% and 5.8% for mortality, 41% and 55% for complications, 12.2% and 11.6% for readmissions, and 9.4% and 13% for a prolonged length of stay, respectively. Furthermore, surgical volume and the star rating were similarly associated with mortality and complications, whereas the star rating was more highly associated with readmissions and prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS:In the absence of other information, these findings suggest that the star rating may be useful to patients when they are selecting a hospital for major cancer surgery. However, more research is needed before these ratings can supplant surgical volume as a measure of surgical quality. Cancer 2017;123:4259-4267. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Project description:BackgroundWe describe the statistical methods and results related to development of the first congenital heart surgery composite quality measure.MethodsThe composite measure was developed using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (2012 to 2015), Bayesian hierarchical modeling, and the current Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk model for case-mix adjustment. It consists of a mortality domain (operative mortality) and morbidity domain (major complications and postoperative length of stay). We evaluated several potential weighting schemes and properties of the final composite measure, including reliability (signal-to-noise ratio) and hospital classification in various performance categories.ResultsOverall, 100 hospitals (78,425 operations) were included. Each adjusted metric included in the composite varied across hospitals: operative mortality (median, 3.1%; 10th to 90th percentile, 2.1% to 4.4%) major complications (median 11.7%, 10th to 90th percentile, 6.4% to 17.4%), and length of stay (median, 7.0 days; 10th to 90th percentile, 5.9 to 8.2 days). In the final composite weighting scheme selected, mortality had the greatest influence, followed by major complications and length of stay (correlation with overall composite score of 0.87, 0.69, and 0.47, respectively). Reliability of the composite measure was 0.73 compared with 0.59 for mortality alone. The distribution of hospitals across composite measure performance categories (defined by whether the 95% credible interval overlapped The Society of Thoracic Surgeons average) was 75% (same as expected), 9% (worse than expected), and 16% (better than expected).ConclusionsThis congenital heart surgery composite measure incorporates aspects of both morbidity and mortality, has clinical face validity, and greater ability to discriminate hospital performance compared with mortality alone. Ongoing efforts will support the use of the composite measure in benchmarking and quality improvement activities.

Project description:Public reporting of quality is considered a key strategy for stimulating improvement efforts at US hospitals; however, little is known about the attitudes of hospital leaders toward existing quality measures.To describe US hospital leaders' attitudes toward hospital quality measures found on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare website, assess use of these measures for quality improvement, and examine the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital quality performance.We mailed a 21-item questionnaire from January 1 through September 31, 2012, to senior hospital leaders from a stratified random sample of 630 US hospitals, including equal numbers with better-than-expected, as-expected, and worse-than-expected performance on mortality and readmission measures.We assessed levels of agreement with statements concerning quality measures, examined use of measures for improvement activities, and analyzed the association between leaders' attitudes and hospital performance.Of 630 hospitals surveyed, 380 (60.3%) responded. For each of the mortality, readmission, process, and patient experience measures, more than 70% of hospitals agreed with the statement that "public reporting stimulates quality improvement activity at my institution"; agreement for measures of cost and volume was 65.2% and 53.3%, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for the statement that "our hospital is able to influence performance on this measure"; agreement for processes of care and patient experience measures was 96.4% and 94.2%, respectively. A total of 89.7% of hospitals agreed that the hospital's reputation was influenced by patient experience measures; agreement was 77.4% for mortality, 69.9% for readmission, 76.3% for process measures, 66.1% for cost measures, and 54.0% for volume measures. A total of 87.1% of hospitals reported incorporating performance on publicly reported measures into their hospital's annual goals, whereas 90.2% reported regularly reviewing the results with the hospital's board of trustees and 94.3% with senior clinical and administrative leaders. When compared with chief executive officers and chief medical officers, respondents who identified themselves as chief quality officers or vice presidents of quality were less likely to agree that public reporting stimulates quality improvement and that measured differences are large enough to differentiate among hospitals.Hospital leaders indicated that the measures reported on the Hospital Compare website exert strong influence over local planning and improvement efforts. However, they expressed concerns about the clinical meaningfulness, unintended consequences, and methods of public reporting.

Dataset Information

Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery.

Publications

Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets