Literature DB >> 16213904

Present-at-admission diagnoses improve mortality risk adjustment and allow more accurate assessment of the relationship between volume of lung cancer operations and mortality risk.

George J Stukenborg1, Kerry L Kilbridge, Douglas P Wagner, Frank E Harrell, M Norman Oliver, Jason A Lyman, Jonathan S Einbinder, Alfred F Connors.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mortality risk adjustment is a key component of studies that examine the statistical relationship between hospital lung cancer operation volume and in-hospital mortality. Previous studies of this relationship have used different methods of adjusting for factors that influence mortality risk, but none have adjusted for differences in comorbid disease using only diagnoses identified as present-at-admission.
METHODS: This study uses adjustments for conditions identified as present-at-admission to examine the statistical relationship between the volume of lung cancer operations and mortality among 14,456 California hospital patients, and compares these results to other methods of risk adjustment similar to those used in previous studies.
RESULTS: Mortality risk adjustment using present-at-admission diagnoses yielded better discrimination and explained more of the variability in observed deaths. Large increases in hospital procedure volume were associated with much smaller decreases in mortality risk than those estimated using comparable risk-adjustment models.
CONCLUSIONS: Present-at-admission diagnoses can be used to improve mortality risk adjustment and may allow a more accurate assessment of the relationship between procedure volume and mortality risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16213904     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.04.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  7 in total

1.  The challenge of achieving 1% operative mortality for coronary artery bypass grafting: a multi-institution Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database analysis.

Authors:  Damien J LaPar; Giovanni Filardo; Ivan K Crosby; Alan M Speir; Jeffrey B Rich; Irving L Kron; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 5.209

2.  Capturing diagnosis-timing in ICD-coded hospital data: recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety.

Authors:  V Sundararajan; P S Romano; H Quan; B Burnand; S E Drösler; S Brien; H A Pincus; W A Ghali
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 2.038

3.  Comparative effectiveness of robotically assisted compared with laparoscopic adnexal surgery for benign gynecologic disease.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Alessandra Kostolias; Cande V Ananth; William M Burke; Ana I Tergas; Eri Prendergast; Scott D Ramsey; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Statin use and postoperative atrial fibrillation after major noncardiac surgery.

Authors:  Prashant D Bhave; L Elizabeth Goldman; Eric Vittinghoff; Judith H Maselli; Andrew Auerbach
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2011-09-09       Impact factor: 6.343

5.  The accuracy of present-on-admission reporting in administrative data.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Philip W Chu; Dennis Osmond; Andrew Bindman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Incidence, predictors, and outcomes associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation after major noncardiac surgery.

Authors:  Prashant D Bhave; L Elizabeth Goldman; Eric Vittinghoff; Judith Maselli; Andrew Auerbach
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Short-term adjusted outcomes for heart failure.

Authors:  Gabriele Messina; Silvia Forni; Francesca Collini; Antonello Galdo; Valeria Di Fabrizio; Nicola Nante
Journal:  Heart Int       Date:  2016-02-18
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.