Literature DB >> 17893625

The impact of different prognostic models and their customization on institutional comparison of intensive care units.

Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez1, Niels Peek, Robert J Bosman, Evert de Jonge, Nicolette F de Keizer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of choice of a prognostic model and the effect of customization of these models on league tables (i.e., rank-order listing) in which intensive care units (ICUs) are ranked by standardized mortality ratios using Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, and Mortality Probability Model II (MPM24II).
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on ICU admissions.
SETTING: Forty Dutch ICUs. PATIENTS: A data set from a national registry of 86,427 patients from January 2002 to October 2006.
INTERVENTIONS: The league tables associated with the different models were compared to evaluate their agreement. Bootstrapping was used to quantify the uncertainty in the ranks for ICUs. First, for each ICU the median rank and its 95% confidence interval were identified for each model. Then, for a given pair of models, for each ICU the median difference in rank and its associated 95% confidence interval were computed. A difference in rank for an ICU for a given pair of models was considered relevant if it was statistically significant and if one of the models would categorize this ICU as a performance outlier (excellent performer or very poor performer) while the other did not.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For 20 ICUs, there was a significant difference in rank (2-19 positions) between one or more pairs of models. Three ICUs were rated as performance outliers by one of the models, while the other excluded this possibility with 95% certainty. Furthermore, for ten ICUs, one or more pairs of models classified these ICUs as performance outliers while the other model did not do so with certainty. Regarding the agreement between the original models and their customized versions, in all cases the median change in rank was three positions or less and the models fully agreed with respect to which ICUs should be classified as performance outliers.
CONCLUSIONS: Institutional comparison based on case-mix adjusted league tables is sensitive to the choice of prognostic model but not to customization of these models. League tables should always display the uncertainty associated with institutional ranks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17893625     DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000288123.29559.5A

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  11 in total

1.  How standard is the "S" in SMR?

Authors:  J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Prediction of long-term mortality in ICU patients: model validation and assessing the effect of using in-hospital versus long-term mortality on benchmarking.

Authors:  Sylvia Brinkman; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Evert de Jonge; Nicolette F de Keizer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-08-07       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Temporal trends in cardiac arrest incidence and outcome in Finnish intensive care units from 2003 to 2013.

Authors:  I Efendijev; R Raj; M Reinikainen; S Hoppu; M B Skrifvars
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  A predictive model for the early identification of patients at risk for a prolonged intensive care unit length of stay.

Authors:  Andrew A Kramer; Jack E Zimmerman
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 2.796

5.  Hospital mortality is associated with ICU admission time.

Authors:  Hans A J M Kuijsten; Sylvia Brinkman; Iwan A Meynaar; Peter E Spronk; Johan I van der Spoel; Rob J Bosman; Nicolette F de Keizer; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Dylan W de Lange
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  [End-of life decisions in intensive care units. Influence of patient wishes on therapeutic decision making].

Authors:  R Riessen; C Bantlin; U Wiesing; M Haap
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 0.840

7.  International comparison of the performance of the paediatric index of mortality (PIM) 2 score in two national data sets.

Authors:  Stéphane Leteurtre; Bruno Grandbastien; Francis Leclerc; Roger Parslow
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Effect of changes over time in the performance of a customized SAPS-II model on the quality of care assessment.

Authors:  Lilian Minne; Saeid Eslami; Nicolette de Keizer; Evert de Jonge; Sophia E de Rooij; Ameen Abu-Hanna
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-10-28       Impact factor: 17.440

9.  Evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored multifaceted performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of care: protocol for a cluster randomized trial in intensive care.

Authors:  Sabine N van der Veer; Maartje L G de Vos; Kitty J Jager; Peter H J van der Voort; Niels Peek; Gert P Westert; Wilco C Graafmans; Nicolette F de Keizer
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-10-24       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  Personalized mortality prediction driven by electronic medical data and a patient similarity metric.

Authors:  Joon Lee; David M Maslove; Joel A Dubin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.