Literature DB >> 19178585

Method to develop health care peer groups for quality and financial comparisons across hospitals.

Margaret M Byrne1, Christina N Daw, Harlan A Nelson, Tracy H Urech, Kenneth Pietz, Laura A Petersen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and explore the characteristics of a novel "nearest neighbor" methodology for creating peer groups for health care facilities. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) databases. STATISTICAL METHODS AND
FINDINGS: Peer groups are developed by first calculating the multidimensional Euclidean distance between each of 133 VA medical centers based on 16 facility characteristics. Each medical center then serves as the center for its own peer group, and the nearest neighbor facilities in terms of Euclidean distance comprise the peer facilities. We explore the attributes and characteristics of the nearest neighbor peer groupings. In addition, we construct standard cluster analysis-derived peer groups and compare the characteristics of groupings from the two methodologies.
CONCLUSIONS: The novel peer group methodology presented here results in groups where each medical center is at the center of its own peer group. Possible advantages over other peer group methodologies are that facilities are never on the "edge" of a group and group size-and thus group dispersion-is determined by the researcher. Peer groups with these characteristics may be more appealing to some researchers and administrators than standard cluster analysis and may thus strengthen organizational buy-in for financial and quality comparisons.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19178585      PMCID: PMC2677055          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2008.00916.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  17 in total

1.  Increasing use of Medicare services by veterans with acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  S M Wright; L A Petersen; R P Lamkin; J Daley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Performance of the '100 top hospitals': what does the report card report?

Authors:  J Chen; M J Radford; Y Wang; T A Marciniak; H M Krumholz
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1999 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Creation of hospital peer groups.

Authors:  M W Zodet; J D Clark
Journal:  Clin Perform Qual Health Care       Date:  1996 Jan-Mar

4.  Insurance principles and the design of prospective payment systems.

Authors:  R P Ellis; T G McGuire
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Peer group benchmarks are not appropriate for health care quality report cards.

Authors:  Patrick S Romano
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  The World Health Organization Performance Assessment Tool for Quality Improvement in Hospitals (PATH): an analysis of the pilot implementation in 37 hospitals.

Authors:  Oliver Groene; Niek Klazinga; Vahé Kazandjian; Pierre Lombrail; Paul Bartels
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2008-03-30       Impact factor: 2.038

7.  Analysis, assessment, and presentation of risk-adjusted statewide obstetrical care data: the StORQS II study in Washington State. Statewide Obstetrics Review and Quality System.

Authors:  R Holubkov; V L Holt; F A Connell; J P LoGerfo
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Impact of the choice of benchmark on the conclusions of hospital report cards.

Authors:  Peter C Austin; David A Alter; Geoffrey M Anderson; Jack V Tu
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.749

9.  Effect of using information from only one system for dually eligible health care users.

Authors:  Margaret M Byrne; Mark Kuebeler; Kenneth Pietz; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Comparison of the predictive validity of diagnosis-based risk adjusters for clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Laura A Petersen; Kenneth Pietz; LeChauncy D Woodard; Margaret Byrne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  12 in total

1.  Development of peer-group-classification criteria for the comparison of cost efficiency among general hospitals under the Korean NHI program.

Authors:  Hee-Chung Kang; Jae-Seok Hong; Heon-Jin Park
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Covering the uninsured as a quality improvement strategy.

Authors:  Sherry Glied
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Preferences Elicited and Respected for Seriously Ill Veterans through Enhanced Decision-Making (PERSIVED): a protocol for an implementation study in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Mary Ersek; Anne Sales; Shimrit Keddem; Roman Ayele; Leah M Haverhals; Kate H Magid; Jennifer Kononowech; Andrew Murray; Joan G Carpenter; Mary Beth Foglia; Lucinda Potter; Jennifer McKenzie; Darlene Davis; Cari Levy
Journal:  Implement Sci Commun       Date:  2022-07-20

4.  Evaluating implementation strategies to support documentation of veterans' care preferences.

Authors:  Joan G Carpenter; Winifred Josephine Scott; Jennifer Kononowech; Mary Beth Foglia; Leah M Haverhals; Robert Hogikyan; Ann Kolanowski; Zach Landis-Lewis; Cari Levy; Susan C Miller; V J Periyakoil; Ciaran S Phibbs; Lucinda Potter; Anne Sales; Mary Ersek
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 3.734

5.  Referral and receipt of treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in United States veterans: effect of patient and nonpatient factors.

Authors:  Jessica A Davila; Jennifer R Kramer; Zhigang Duan; Peter A Richardson; Gia L Tyson; Yvonne H Sada; Fasiha Kanwal; Hashem B El-Serag
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 17.425

6.  A hospital-specific template for benchmarking its cost and quality.

Authors:  Jeffrey H Silber; Paul R Rosenbaum; Richard N Ross; Justin M Ludwig; Wei Wang; Bijan A Niknam; Philip A Saynisch; Orit Even-Shoshan; Rachel R Kelz; Lee A Fleisher
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research.

Authors:  Laura A Petersen; Kate Simpson; Richard Sorelle; Tracy Urech; Supicha Sookanan Chitwood
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Improving quality of care through improved audit and feedback.

Authors:  Sylvia J Hysong; Cayla R Teal; Myrna J Khan; Paul Haidet
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  Recruiting clinical personnel as research participants: a framework for assessing feasibility.

Authors:  Sylvia J Hysong; Kristen Broussard Smitham; Melissa Knox; Khai-El Johnson; Richard SoRelle; Paul Haidet
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 7.327

10.  How context affects electronic health record-based test result follow-up: a mixed-methods evaluation.

Authors:  Shailaja Menon; Michael W Smith; Dean F Sittig; Nancy J Petersen; Sylvia J Hysong; Donna Espadas; Varsha Modi; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.