Literature DB >> 21680560

Funnel plots for comparing provider performance based on patient-reported outcome measures.

Jenny Neuburger1, David A Cromwell, Andrew Hutchings, Nick Black, Jan H van der Meulen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) often produce skewed distributions of individual scores after a healthcare intervention. For health performance indicators derived from skewed distributions, funnel plots designed with symmetric control limits may increase the risk of false alarms about poor performance. AIM: To investigate the accuracy of funnel plots with symmetric control limits when comparing provider performance based on PROMs.
METHODS: The authors used a database containing condition-specific PROMs for 17,453 hip replacements and 7656 varicose vein procedures performed by providers in the English NHS. The mean postoperative PROM score, adjusted for patient characteristics, was used as the measure of performance. To compare performance, symmetric 99.8% control limits were calculated on funnel plots, 3 SDs away from the overall mean on either side. These were compared to control limits derived directly from percentiles of simulated (bootstrap) distributions of mean scores.
RESULTS: The simulated control limits on funnel plots for both procedures were asymmetric. The empirical probability of falling outside the symmetric 99.8% 'poor performance' control limit was inflated from the stipulated rate of 0.1% to 0.2-0.3% for provider sample sizes of up to 150 procedures. The authors observed that, out of 237 providers of hip replacement, eight had adjusted mean scores that exceeded the symmetric 'poor performance' limit compared with only five that exceeded the corresponding simulated limit. In other words, three (1.3%) were differently classified. For varicose vein surgery, five out of 160 providers exceeded the symmetric limit and four exceeded the simulated limit, that is, 1 (0.6%) was differently classified.
CONCLUSIONS: When designing funnel plots for comparisons of provider performance based on highly skewed data, the use of simulated control limits should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21680560     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  2 in total

1.  The Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP patient study): protocol for a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study to measure quality of care and outcomes after major surgery.

Authors:  S Ramani Moonesinghe; Dermot McGuckin; Peter Martin; James Bedford; Duncan Wagstaff; David Gilhooly; Cristel Santos; Jonathan Wilson; Jenny Dorey; Irene Leeman; Helena Smith; Cecilia Vindrola-Padros; Kylie Edwards; Georgina Singleton; Michael Swart; Rachel Baumber; Arun Sahni; Samantha Warnakulasuriya; Ravi Vohra; Helen Ellicott; Anne-Marie Bougeard; Maria Chazapis; Aleksandra Ignacka; Martin Cripps; Alexandra Brent; Sharon Drake; James Goodwin; Dorian Martinez; Karen Williams; Pritam Singh; Matthew Bedford; Abigail E Vallance; Katie Samuel; Jose Lourtie; Dominic Olive; Christine Taylor; Olga Tucker; Giuseppe Aresu; Andrew Swift; Naomi Fulop; Mike Grocott
Journal:  Perioper Med (Lond)       Date:  2022-08-09

2.  Modelling hospital outcome: problems with endogeneity.

Authors:  John L Moran; John D Santamaria; Graeme J Duke
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 4.615

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.