BACKGROUND: Comparison of institutional health care outcomes requires risk adjustment. Risk-adjustment methodology may influence the results of such comparisons. METHODS: We compared 3 risk-adjustment methodologies used to assess the quality of surgical care. Nurse reviewers abstracted data from a continuous sample of 2,167 surgical patients at 3 academic institutions. One risk adjustor was based on medical record data (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [NSQIP]) whereas the other 2, the DxCG and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), primarily used International Classification of Disease-9 (ICD-9) codes. Risk-assessment scores from the 3 systems were compared with each other and with mortality. RESULTS: Substantial disagreement was found in the risk assessment calculated by the 3 methodologies. Although there was a weak association between the CCI and DxCG, neither correlated well with the NSQIP. The NSQIP was best able to predict mortality, followed by the DxCG and CCI. CONCLUSION: In surgical patients, different risk-adjustment methodologies afford divergent estimates of mortality risk.
BACKGROUND: Comparison of institutional health care outcomes requires risk adjustment. Risk-adjustment methodology may influence the results of such comparisons. METHODS: We compared 3 risk-adjustment methodologies used to assess the quality of surgical care. Nurse reviewers abstracted data from a continuous sample of 2,167 surgical patients at 3 academic institutions. One risk adjustor was based on medical record data (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program [NSQIP]) whereas the other 2, the DxCG and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), primarily used International Classification of Disease-9 (ICD-9) codes. Risk-assessment scores from the 3 systems were compared with each other and with mortality. RESULTS: Substantial disagreement was found in the risk assessment calculated by the 3 methodologies. Although there was a weak association between the CCI and DxCG, neither correlated well with the NSQIP. The NSQIP was best able to predict mortality, followed by the DxCG and CCI. CONCLUSION: In surgical patients, different risk-adjustment methodologies afford divergent estimates of mortality risk.
Authors: Katharine A Bradley; Anna D Rubinsky; Haili Sun; Chris L Bryson; Michael J Bishop; David K Blough; William G Henderson; Charles Maynard; Mary T Hawn; Hanne Tønnesen; Grant Hughes; Lauren A Beste; Alex H S Harris; Eric J Hawkins; Thomas K Houston; Daniel R Kivlahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rachel M Owen; Sebastian D Perez; Nathan Lytle; Ankit Patel; S S Davis; Edward Lin; John F Sweeney Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bonnie K Lind; Mary M Gerkovich; Daniel C Cherkin; Richard A Deyo; Karen J Sherman; William E Lafferty Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Hemalkumar B Mehta; Francesca Dimou; Deepak Adhikari; Nina P Tamirisa; Eric Sieloff; Taylor P Williams; Yong-Fang Kuo; Taylor S Riall Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lorraine T Dean; Xiaochen Zhang; Nawar Latif; Robert Giuntoli; Lilie Lin; Ashley Haggerty; Sarah Kim; David Shalowitz; Caitlin Stashwick; Fiona Simpkins; Robert Burger; Mark Morgan; Emily Ko; Kathryn Schmitz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 3.603