Literature DB >> 2033767

Biased estimates of expected acute myocardial infarction mortality using MedisGroups admission severity groups.

M S Blumberg1.   

Abstract

This study examines whether the MedisGroups admission severity groups give unbiased estimates of 30-day mortality in 3037 Medicare-aged patients who were hospitalized in 1985 through 1986 with acute myocardial infarction. The average observed death rate for all acute myocardial infarction patients in the study who were in a given admission severity group was used to estimate the expected death probability for each case in a given group. (This is the same method used by the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council for risk adjusting hospital mortality by diagnosis related groups in that state.) When compared with observed deaths, estimates of expected mortality were significantly biased for many patient attributes (eg, age, location of acute myocardial infarction, history of congestive heart failure, serum potassium level, serum urea nitrogen level, pulse rate, and blood pressure). These results are consistent with a conclusion that the MedisGroups scoring algorithm omits some important risk variables, inappropriately includes some other variables reflecting postadmission status, and gives the wrong weights to some appropriate risk variables. To the extent that these findings are also applicable to current MedisGroups scoring algorithms and to other conditions and procedures, MedisGroups admission severity groups cannot fairly adjust for interhospital case mix differences in outcome studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2033767

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  8 in total

1.  Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the influence of the severity-adjustment method.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni; A S Ash; M Shwartz; J Daley; J S Hughes; Y D Mackiernan
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Weak associations between hospital mortality rates for individual diagnoses: implications for profiling hospital quality.

Authors:  G E Rosenthal
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Do severity measures explain differences in length of hospital stay? The case of hip fracture.

Authors:  M Shwartz; L I Iezzoni; A S Ash; Y D Mackiernan
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Validation of the pneumonia severity index. Importance of study-specific recalibration.

Authors:  W D Flanders; G Tucker; A Krishnadasan; D Martin; E Honig; W M McClellan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  The need for accurate risk-adjusted measures of outcome in surgery. Lessons learned through coronary artery bypass.

Authors:  B P Griffith; B G Hattler; R L Hardesty; R L Kormos; S M Pham; H T Bahnson
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 12.969

6.  Comparing healthcare outcomes.

Authors:  C Orchard
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-06-04

7.  Comparison of a disease-specific and a generic severity of illness measure for patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Authors:  M J Fine; B H Hanusa; J R Lave; D E Singer; R A Stone; L A Weissfeld; C M Coley; T J Marrie; W N Kapoor
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Case-mix adjusted hospital mortality is a poor proxy for preventable mortality: a modelling study.

Authors:  Alan J Girling; Timothy P Hofer; Jianhua Wu; Peter J Chilton; Jonathan P Nicholl; Mohammed A Mohammed; Richard J Lilford
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 7.035

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.