Mila H Ju1, Jeanette W Chung, Christine V Kinnier, David J Bentrem, David M Mahvi, Clifford Y Ko, Karl Y Bilimoria. 1. *Division of Research and Optimal Patient Care, American College of Surgeons, Chicago, IL †Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL ‡Department of Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the presence and extent of venous thromboembolic (VTE) surveillance bias using high-quality clinical data. BACKGROUND: Hospital VTE rates are publicly reported and used in pay-for-performance programs. Prior work suggested surveillance bias: hospitals that look more for VTE with imaging studies find more VTE, thereby incorrectly seem to have worse performance. However, these results have been questioned as the risk adjustment and VTE measurement relied on administrative data. METHODS: Data (2009-2010) from 208 hospitals were available for analysis. Hospitals were divided into quartiles according to VTE imaging use rates (Medicare claims). Observed and risk-adjusted postoperative VTE event rates (regression models using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data) were examined across VTE imaging use rate quartiles. Multivariable linear regression models were developed to assess the impact of hospital characteristics (American Hospital Association) and hospital imaging use rates on VTE event rates. RESULTS: The mean risk-adjusted VTE event rates at 30 days after surgery increased across VTE imaging use rate quartiles: 1.13% in the lowest quartile to 1.92% in the highest quartile (P < 0.001). This statistically significant trend remained when examining only the inpatient period. Hospital VTE imaging use rate was the dominant driver of hospital VTE event rates (P < 0.001), as no other hospital characteristics had significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: Even when examined with clinically ascertained outcomes and detailed risk adjustment, VTE rates reflect hospital imaging use and perhaps signify vigilant, high-quality care. The VTE outcome measure may not be an accurate quality indicator and should likely not be used in public reporting or pay-for-performance programs.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess the presence and extent of venous thromboembolic (VTE) surveillance bias using high-quality clinical data. BACKGROUND: Hospital VTE rates are publicly reported and used in pay-for-performance programs. Prior work suggested surveillance bias: hospitals that look more for VTE with imaging studies find more VTE, thereby incorrectly seem to have worse performance. However, these results have been questioned as the risk adjustment and VTE measurement relied on administrative data. METHODS: Data (2009-2010) from 208 hospitals were available for analysis. Hospitals were divided into quartiles according to VTE imaging use rates (Medicare claims). Observed and risk-adjusted postoperative VTE event rates (regression models using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data) were examined across VTE imaging use rate quartiles. Multivariable linear regression models were developed to assess the impact of hospital characteristics (American Hospital Association) and hospital imaging use rates on VTE event rates. RESULTS: The mean risk-adjusted VTE event rates at 30 days after surgery increased across VTE imaging use rate quartiles: 1.13% in the lowest quartile to 1.92% in the highest quartile (P < 0.001). This statistically significant trend remained when examining only the inpatient period. Hospital VTE imaging use rate was the dominant driver of hospital VTE event rates (P < 0.001), as no other hospital characteristics had significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: Even when examined with clinically ascertained outcomes and detailed risk adjustment, VTE rates reflect hospital imaging use and perhaps signify vigilant, high-quality care. The VTE outcome measure may not be an accurate quality indicator and should likely not be used in public reporting or pay-for-performance programs.
Authors: Bruce L Hall; Barton H Hamilton; Karen Richards; Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Elliott R Haut; Kathy Noll; David T Efron; Sean M Berenholz; Adil Haider; Edward E Cornwell; Peter J Pronovost Journal: J Trauma Date: 2007-11
Authors: Patrick S Romano; Hillary J Mull; Peter E Rivard; Shibei Zhao; William G Henderson; Susan Loveland; Dennis Tsilimingras; Cindy L Christiansen; Amy K Rosen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Elliott R Haut; David C Chang; Charles A Pierce; Elizabeth Colantuoni; David T Efron; Adil H Haider; Edward E Cornwell; Peter J Pronovost Journal: J Trauma Date: 2009-04
Authors: William H Geerts; David Bergqvist; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; Charles M Samama; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell Journal: Chest Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Katherine E Henderson; Angela j Recktenwald; Richard M Reichley; Thomas C Bailey; Brian M Waterman; Rebecca L Diekemper; Patricia E Storey; Belinda K Ireland; Wm Claiborne Dunagan Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2009-07
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; David J Bentrem; Andrew K Stewart; David P Winchester; Clifford Y Ko Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Luke V Selby; Mindy Sovel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Margaret McSweeney; Damon Douglas; David R Jones; Peter T Scardino; Gerald A Soff; Nicola Fabbri; Kent Sepkowitz; Vivian E Strong; Inderpal S Sarkaria Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Anthony D Yang; Daniel Brock Hewitt; Eddie Blay; Lindsey J Kreutzer; Christopher M Quinn; Kimberly A Cradock; Vivek Prachand; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Jianlin Shi; John F Hurdle; Stacy A Johnson; Jeffrey P Ferraro; David E Skarda; Samuel R G Finlayson; Matthew H Samore; Brian T Bucher Journal: Surgery Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Jenna K Lovely; Joel A Hickman; Matthew G Johnson; James M Naessens; Timothy I Morgenthaler Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-02-17