Dataset Information

Observed to expected or logistic regression to identify hospitals with high or low 30-day mortality?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A common quality indicator for monitoring and comparing hospitals is based on death within 30 days of admission. An important use is to determine whether a hospital has higher or lower mortality than other hospitals. Thus, the ability to identify such outliers correctly is essential. Two approaches for detection are: 1) calculating the ratio of observed to expected number of deaths (OE) per hospital and 2) including all hospitals in a logistic regression (LR) comparing each hospital to a form of average over all hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare OE and LR with respect to correctly identifying 30-day mortality outliers. Modifications of the methods, i.e., variance corrected approach of OE (OE-Faris), bias corrected LR (LR-Firth), and trimmed mean variants of LR and LR-Firth were also studied.

Materials and methods

To study the properties of OE and LR and their variants, we performed a simulation study by generating patient data from hospitals with known outlier status (low mortality, high mortality, non-outlier). Data from simulated scenarios with varying number of hospitals, hospital volume, and mortality outlier status, were analysed by the different methods and compared by level of significance (ability to falsely claim an outlier) and power (ability to reveal an outlier). Moreover, administrative data for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and hip fracture from Norwegian hospitals for 2012-2014 were analysed.

Results

None of the methods achieved the nominal (test) level of significance for both low and high mortality outliers. For low mortality outliers, the levels of significance were increased four- to fivefold for OE and OE-Faris. For high mortality outliers, OE and OE-Faris, LR 25% trimmed and LR-Firth 10% and 25% trimmed maintained approximately the nominal level. The methods agreed with respect to outlier status for 94.1% of the AMI hospitals, 98.0% of the stroke, and 97.8% of the hip fracture hospitals.

Conclusion

We recommend, on the balance, LR-Firth 10% or 25% trimmed for detection of both low and high mortality outliers.

SUBMITTER: Kristoffersen DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5898724 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven the increased attention to sepsis at the population level there is a need to assess hospital performance in the care of sepsis patients using widely-available administrative data. The goal of this study was to develop an administrative risk-adjustment model suitable for profiling hospitals on their 30-day mortality rates for patients with sepsis.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using hospital discharge data from general acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania in 2012 and 2013. We identified adult patients with sepsis as determined by validated diagnosis and procedure codes. We developed an administrative risk-adjustment model in 2012 data. We then validated this model in two ways: by examining the stability of performance assessments over time between 2012 and 2013, and by examining the stability of performance assessments in 2012 after the addition of laboratory variables measured on day one of hospital admission.ResultsIn 2012 there were 115,213 sepsis encounters in 152 hospitals. The overall unadjusted mortality rate was 18.5%. The final risk-adjustment model had good discrimination (C-statistic = 0.78) and calibration (slope and intercept of the calibration curve = 0.960 and 0.007, respectively). Based on this model, hospital-specific risk-standardized mortality rates ranged from 12.2 to 24.5%. Comparing performance assessments between years, correlation in risk-adjusted mortality rates was good (Pearson's correlation = 0.53) and only 19.7% of hospitals changed by more than one quintile in performance rankings. Comparing performance assessments after the addition of laboratory variables, correlation in risk-adjusted mortality rates was excellent (Pearson's correlation = 0.93) and only 2.6% of hospitals changed by more than one quintile in performance rankings.ConclusionsA novel claims-based risk-adjustment model demonstrated wide variation in risk-standardized 30-day sepsis mortality rates across hospitals. Individual hospitals' performance rankings were stable across years and after the addition of laboratory data. This model provides a robust way to rank hospitals on sepsis mortality while adjusting for patient risk.

Project description:It is expected but unknown whether machine-learning models can outperform regression models, such as a logistic regression (LR) model, especially when the number and types of predictor variables increase in electronic health records (EHRs). We aimed to compare the predictive performance of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT), random forest (RF), deep neural network (DNN), and LR with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LR-LASSO) for unplanned readmission. We used EHRs of patients discharged alive from 38 hospitals in 2015-2017 for derivation and in 2018 for validation, including basic characteristics, diagnosis, surgery, procedure, and drug codes, and blood-test results. The outcome was 30-day unplanned readmission. We created six patterns of data tables having different numbers of binary variables (that ≥5% or ≥1% of patients or ≥10 patients had) with and without blood-test results. For each pattern of data tables, we used the derivation data to establish the machine-learning and LR models, and used the validation data to evaluate the performance of each model. The incidence of outcome was 6.8% (23,108/339,513 discharges) and 6.4% (7,507/118,074 discharges) in the derivation and validation datasets, respectively. For the first data table with the smallest number of variables (102 variables that ≥5% of patients had, without blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.740), followed by RF (0.734), LR-LASSO (0.720), and DNN (0.664). For the last data table with the largest number of variables (1543 variables that ≥10 patients had, including blood-test results), the c-statistic was highest for GBDT (0.764), followed by LR-LASSO (0.755), RF (0.751), and DNN (0.720), suggesting that the difference between GBDT and LR-LASSO was small and their 95% confidence intervals overlapped. In conclusion, GBDT generally outperformed LR-LASSO to predict unplanned readmission, but the difference of c-statistic became smaller as the number of variables was increased and blood-test results were used.

Project description:Introduction: Preterm babies are a vulnerable population that experience significant short and long-term morbidity. Rehospitalisations constitute an important, potentially modifiable adverse event in this population. Improving the ability of clinicians to identify those patients at the greatest risk of rehospitalisation has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Machine-learning algorithms can provide potentially advantageous methods of prediction compared to conventional approaches like logistic regression. Objective: To compare two machine-learning methods (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and random forest) to expert-opinion driven logistic regression modelling for predicting unplanned rehospitalisation within 30 days in a large French cohort of preterm babies. Design, Setting and Participants: This study used data derived exclusively from the population-based prospective cohort study of French preterm babies, EPIPAGE 2. Only those babies discharged home alive and whose parents completed the 1-year survey were eligible for inclusion in our study. All predictive models used a binary outcome, denoting a baby's status for an unplanned rehospitalisation within 30 days of discharge. Predictors included those quantifying clinical, treatment, maternal and socio-demographic factors. The predictive abilities of models constructed using LASSO and random forest algorithms were compared with a traditional logistic regression model. The logistic regression model comprised 10 predictors, selected by expert clinicians, while the LASSO and random forest included 75 predictors. Performance measures were derived using 10-fold cross-validation. Performance was quantified using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, Tjur's coefficient of determination and calibration measures. Results: The rate of 30-day unplanned rehospitalisation in the eligible population used to construct the models was 9.1% (95% CI 8.2-10.1) (350/3,841). The random forest model demonstrated both an improved AUROC (0.65; 95% CI 0.59-0.7; p = 0.03) and specificity vs. logistic regression (AUROC 0.57; 95% CI 0.51-0.62, p = 0.04). The LASSO performed similarly (AUROC 0.59; 95% CI 0.53-0.65; p = 0.68) to logistic regression. Conclusions: Compared to an expert-specified logistic regression model, random forest offered improved prediction of 30-day unplanned rehospitalisation in preterm babies. However, all models offered relatively low levels of predictive ability, regardless of modelling method.

Project description:Data are sparse on the range of BMI among patients acutely admitted to general hospitals. We investigated BMI values and associated patient characteristics, reasons for hospital admission, and mortality in Denmark.We identified all persons with an acute inpatient admission 2011-2014 in Central Denmark Region and assessed BMI measurements recorded in the Clinical Information System. We used cross-sectional and cohort analyses to examine the BMI distribution and its association with demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, tobacco smoking, reasons for admission, and 30-day mortality.Among 92,027 acutely admitted patients (median age 62 years, 49% female) with a BMI measurement, 4% had a BMI (kg/m2) <18.5, 42% a BMI between 18.5 and 25, 34% a BMI between 25 and 30, and 20% a BMI ≥30. Compared with normal-weight patients, 30-day mortality was high among patients with BMI <18.5 (7.5% vs. 2.8%, age- and smoking-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.4; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-2.9, whereas patients with overweight (aOR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.6-0.8) and obesity class I (aOR 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6-0.9)). Compared with the total population, patients with BMI <18.5 were older (68 years median); more were female (73%); more had comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score >0 in 42% vs. 33% overall), more were current smokers (45% vs. 27% overall), and acute admissions due to respiratory diseases or femoral fractures were frequent. In contrast, patients with BMI ≥30 were relatively young (59 years median), fewer smoked (24%): type 2 diabetes, sleep disorders, cholelithiasis, and heart failure were frequent diagnoses. Prevalence of therapies for metabolic syndrome, pain, and psychiatric disorders increased with higher BMI, while patients with BMI <18.5 frequently used asthma medications, glucocorticoids, and antibiotics.In patients acutely admitted to general hospitals, reasons for hospital admission and associated clinical characteristics differ substantially according to BMI range. BMI <18.5 is a clinical predictor of high short-term mortality.