Peter C Austin1, Mathew J Reeves. 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Institute of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. peter.austin@ices.on.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards, in which outcomes following the provision of medical or surgical care are compared across health care providers, are being published with increasing frequency. Essential to the production of these reports is risk-adjustment, which allows investigators to account for differences in the distribution of patient illness severity across different hospitals. Logistic regression models are frequently used for risk adjustment in hospital report cards. Many applied researchers use the c-statistic (equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of the logistic regression model as a measure of the credibility and accuracy of hospital report cards. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between the c-statistic of a risk-adjustment model and the accuracy of hospital report cards. RESEARCH DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulations were used to examine this issue. We examined the influence of 3 factors on the accuracy of hospital report cards: the c-statistic of the logistic regression model used for risk adjustment, the number of hospitals, and the number of patients treated at each hospital. The parameters used to generate the simulated datasets came from analyses of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The c-statistic of the risk-adjustment model had, at most, a very modest impact on the accuracy of hospital report cards, whereas the number of patients treated at each hospital had a much greater impact. CONCLUSIONS: The c-statistic of a risk-adjustment model should not be used to assess the accuracy of a hospital report card.
BACKGROUND: Hospital report cards, in which outcomes following the provision of medical or surgical care are compared across health care providers, are being published with increasing frequency. Essential to the production of these reports is risk-adjustment, which allows investigators to account for differences in the distribution of patient illness severity across different hospitals. Logistic regression models are frequently used for risk adjustment in hospital report cards. Many applied researchers use the c-statistic (equivalent to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of the logistic regression model as a measure of the credibility and accuracy of hospital report cards. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between the c-statistic of a risk-adjustment model and the accuracy of hospital report cards. RESEARCH DESIGN: Monte Carlo simulations were used to examine this issue. We examined the influence of 3 factors on the accuracy of hospital report cards: the c-statistic of the logistic regression model used for risk adjustment, the number of hospitals, and the number of patients treated at each hospital. The parameters used to generate the simulated datasets came from analyses of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The c-statistic of the risk-adjustment model had, at most, a very modest impact on the accuracy of hospital report cards, whereas the number of patients treated at each hospital had a much greater impact. CONCLUSIONS: The c-statistic of a risk-adjustment model should not be used to assess the accuracy of a hospital report card.
Authors: Bradley G Hammill; Lesley H Curtis; Gregg C Fonarow; Paul A Heidenreich; Clyde W Yancy; Eric D Peterson; Adrian F Hernandez Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-12-07
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Gregg C Fonarow; Wenqin Pan; Jeffrey L Saver; Eric E Smith; Mathew J Reeves; Joseph P Broderick; Dawn O Kleindorfer; Ralph L Sacco; DaiWai M Olson; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Lee H Schwamm Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; Bertram L Kasiske; Melissa A Skeans; Sally K Gustafson; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Amresh D Hanchate; Kelly L Stolzmann; Amy K Rosen; Aaron S Fink; Michael Shwartz; Arlene S Ash; Hassen Abdulkerim; Mary Jo V Pugh; Priti Shokeen; Ann Borzecki Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2016-12-05
Authors: Bertram L Kasiske; Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; David Zaun; Cory R Schaffhausen; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Sean M O'Brien; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Sara K Pasquali; J William Gaynor; Tara Karamlou; Karl F Welke; Giovanni Filardo; Jane M Han; Sunghee Kim; David M Shahian; Marshall L Jacobs Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Mark Adams; Julia Braun; Hans Ulrich Bucher; Milo Alan Puhan; Dirk Bassler; Viktor Von Wyl Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Ilona Wm Verburg; Rebecca Holman; Niels Peek; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Joanna B Broad; Toni Ashton; Thomas Lumley; Michal Boyd; Ngaire Kerse; Martin J Connolly Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 4.615