Literature DB >> 17237448

Assessing the accuracy of hospital clinical performance measures.

Sharon-Lise T Normand1, Robert E Wolf, John Z Ayanian, Barbara J McNeil.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To control costs and improve quality, payers are designing new hospital reimbursement policies that link payment to quality. The authors determine the extent to which quality measures discriminate hospitals into tiers in 2 geographic areas. DATA SOURCES: Administrative and medical record data for patients discharged with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 368 California and 81 Massachusetts hospitals.
METHODS: Through simulation, the minimum numbers of patients per hospital needed to identify high-quality hospitals with sensitivity ranging from 75% to 95% under a variety of clinical scenarios are determined.
RESULTS: Massachusetts hospitals had twice the number of eligible patients per hospital than California hospitals. Regardless of state, few hospitals had sufficient sample size needed to achieve >85% sensitivity for high-variation quality measures. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Reliability of quality-based reimbursement systems relies on the distribution of the hospital sample sizes within geographic areas and the size of practice differences. Selection of conformance thresholds and sensitivity levels depends on the user of the information. To assess the usefulness of performance measures to tier hospitals, information regarding between-hospital variation in quality for specific clinical measures needs to be collected and reported.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17237448     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06298028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  7 in total

1.  What is the best way to estimate hospital quality outcomes? A simulation approach.

Authors:  Andrew Ryan; James Burgess; Robert Strawderman; Justin Dimick
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Misclassification Risk of Tier-Based Physician Quality Performance Systems.

Authors:  John L Adams; Susan M Paddock
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Influence of hospital and nursing home quality on hospital readmissions.

Authors:  Kali S Thomas; Momotazur Rahman; Vincent Mor; Orna Intrator
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Comparing and ranking hospitals based on outcome: results from The Netherlands Stroke Survey.

Authors:  H F Lingsma; E W Steyerberg; M J C Eijkemans; D W J Dippel; W J M Scholte Op Reimer; H C Van Houwelingen
Journal:  QJM       Date:  2009-12-11

5.  Profiling provider outcome quality for pay-for-performance in the presence of missing data: a simulation approach.

Authors:  Andrew M Ryan; Yuhua Bao
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Hospital performance trends on national quality measures and the association with Joint Commission accreditation.

Authors:  Stephen P Schmaltz; Scott C Williams; Mark R Chassin; Jerod M Loeb; Robert M Wachter
Journal:  J Hosp Med       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.960

7.  Ranking hospitals when performance and risk factors are correlated: A simulation-based comparison of risk adjustment approaches for binary outcomes.

Authors:  Martin Roessler; Jochen Schmitt; Olaf Schoffer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.