Literature DB >> 16158404

The effect of provider-level ascertainment bias on profiling nursing homes.

Jason Roy1, Vincent Mor.   

Abstract

Profiling health care providers for the purpose of public reporting and quality improvement has become commonplace. Recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began publishing measures of quality for every Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home in the country. The facility-specific quality indicators (QIs) reported by CMS are based on quarterly measures from the minimum data set (MDS). However, some QIs from the MDS are potentially subject to ascertainment bias. Ascertainment bias would occur if there was variation in the way items that make up QIs are measured by nurses from each facility. This is potentially a problem for difficult-to-measure items such as pain and pressure ulcers. To assess the impact of ascertainment bias on profiling, we utilize data from a reliability study of nursing homes from six states. We develop methods for profiling providers in situations where the data consist of a response variable for each subject based on assessments from an internal rater, and, for a subset of subjects in each facility, a response variable based on assessments from an independent (external) rater. The internal assessments are potentially subject to provider-level ascertainment bias, whereas the independent assessments are considered the 'gold standard'. Our methods extend popular Bayesian approaches for profiling by using the paired observations from the subset of subjects with error-prone and error-free assessments to adjust for ascertainment bias. We apply the methods to MDS merged with the reliability data, and compare the bias-corrected profiles with those of standard approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16158404     DOI: 10.1002/sim.2215

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  8 in total

1.  Pain management in nursing homes: what do quality measure scores tell us?

Authors:  Teresa L Russell; Richard W Madsen; Marcia Flesner; Marilyn J Rantz
Journal:  J Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2010-05-21       Impact factor: 1.254

Review 2.  Improving the quality of long-term care with better information.

Authors:  Vincent Mor
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Explaining direct care resource use of nursing home residents: findings from time studies in four states.

Authors:  Greg Arling; Robert L Kane; Christine Mueller; Teresa Lewis
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Safety outcomes in the United States: trends and challenges in measurement.

Authors:  Michael D Greenberg; Amelia M Haviland; Hao Yu; Donna O Farley
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Targeting nursing homes under the Quality Improvement Organization program's 9th statement of work.

Authors:  David G Stevenson; Vincent Mor
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 5.562

6.  Classification accuracy of claims-based methods for identifying providers failing to meet performance targets.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Rhondee Benjamin-Johnson; Tracy Onega; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Weiwei Zhu; Joshua J Fenton
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Temporal and Geographic variation in the validity and internal consistency of the Nursing Home Resident Assessment Minimum Data Set 2.0.

Authors:  Vincent Mor; Orna Intrator; Mark Aaron Unruh; Shubing Cai
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Selecting long-term care facilities with high use of acute hospitalisations: issues and options.

Authors:  Joanna B Broad; Toni Ashton; Thomas Lumley; Michal Boyd; Ngaire Kerse; Martin J Connolly
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 4.615

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.