Kathy J Jenkins1, Kimberlee Gauvreau. 1. Department of Cardiology, Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA. jenkins@cardio.tch.harvard.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the usefulness of the Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery method (designated RACHS-1) of adjusting for case-mix differences when comparing institutional mortality after surgery for congenital heart disease. METHODS: By using 1996 hospital discharge data from 6 states, centers performing at least 100 operations for congenital heart disease (patient age <18 years) were identified. Using the RACHS-1 method, procedures were grouped into 6 risk categories, and institutions were ranked in order of increasing mortality rate. A graphic display of ranks by risk category identified patterns of performance. Incorporating age, prematurity, and presence of a major noncardiac structural anomaly into multivariate models allowed computation of an overall risk-adjusted rank for each institution on the basis of its standardized mortality ratio. RESULTS: Among 109 centers performing 7177 operations for congenital heart disease, 22 performed at least 100 cases (72.3% of total operations). Unadjusted mortality rates ranged from 2.5% to 11.4%. A total of 4318 cases could be placed into 1 of the 6 risk categories. Few deaths occurred in risk category 1, and few institutions performed procedures in risk categories 5 and 6, making institutional comparisons in these categories uninformative. Considering mortality rates in categories 2 through 4, institutions displayed either relatively consistent ranks, a threshold increase in mortality as higher-risk procedures were performed, or a threshold decrease in mortality. Standardized mortality ratios indicated which institutions performed better or worse than expected on the basis of their case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The RACHS-1 method can be used to judge relative institutional performance, either by evaluating within-risk-category differences or by comparisons of observed and expected mortality rates.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the usefulness of the Risk Adjustment in Congenital Heart Surgery method (designated RACHS-1) of adjusting for case-mix differences when comparing institutional mortality after surgery for congenital heart disease. METHODS: By using 1996 hospital discharge data from 6 states, centers performing at least 100 operations for congenital heart disease (patient age <18 years) were identified. Using the RACHS-1 method, procedures were grouped into 6 risk categories, and institutions were ranked in order of increasing mortality rate. A graphic display of ranks by risk category identified patterns of performance. Incorporating age, prematurity, and presence of a major noncardiac structural anomaly into multivariate models allowed computation of an overall risk-adjusted rank for each institution on the basis of its standardized mortality ratio. RESULTS: Among 109 centers performing 7177 operations for congenital heart disease, 22 performed at least 100 cases (72.3% of total operations). Unadjusted mortality rates ranged from 2.5% to 11.4%. A total of 4318 cases could be placed into 1 of the 6 risk categories. Few deaths occurred in risk category 1, and few institutions performed procedures in risk categories 5 and 6, making institutional comparisons in these categories uninformative. Considering mortality rates in categories 2 through 4, institutions displayed either relatively consistent ranks, a threshold increase in mortality as higher-risk procedures were performed, or a threshold decrease in mortality. Standardized mortality ratios indicated which institutions performed better or worse than expected on the basis of their case mix. CONCLUSIONS: The RACHS-1 method can be used to judge relative institutional performance, either by evaluating within-risk-category differences or by comparisons of observed and expected mortality rates.
Authors: Preeti Ramachandran; Jessica G Woo; Thomas D Ryan; Roosevelt Bryant; Haleh C Heydarian; John L Jefferies; Jeffrey A Towbin; Angela Lorts Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Amanda B Hassinger; Mark S Wainwright; Jerome C Lane; Shannon Haymond; Carl L Backer; Eric Wald Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael Zappitelli; Jason H Greenberg; Steven G Coca; Catherine D Krawczeski; Simon Li; Heather R Thiessen-Philbrook; Michael R Bennett; Prasad Devarajan; Chirag R Parikh Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Rie Sakai-Bizmark; Laurie A Mena; Hiraku Kumamaru; Ichiro Kawachi; Emily H Marr; Eliza J Webber; Hyun H Seo; Scott I M Friedlander; Ruey-Kang R Chang Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Michael G Gaies; Monica Langer; Jamin Alexander; Garry M Steil; Janice Ware; David Wypij; Peter C Laussen; Jane W Newburger; Caren S Goldberg; Frank A Pigula; Avinash C Shukla; Christopher P Duggan; Michael S D Agus Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.624