Julia Anne Nightingale1, Clive Osmond2. 1. Department of Adult Cystic Fibrosis, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: julia.nightingale@uhs.nhs.uk. 2. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, United Kingdom. Electronic address: co@mrc.soton.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcome data for UK cystic fibrosis centres are publicly available in an annual report, which ranks centres by median FEV1% predicted. We wished to assess whether there are differences in lung function outcomes between adult centres that might imply differing standards of care. METHODS: UK Registry data from 4761 subjects at 34 anonymised adult centres were used to calculate mean FEV1% and rate of change of lung function for 2007-13. These measures were used to rank centres and compare outcomes. RESULTS: There are minor differences between centres for mean FEV1% for some years of the study and for rate of change of lung function over the study period. However, rankings are critically dependent on the outcome measure chosen and centre variation becomes negligible once patient population characteristics are taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the ranking of centres is biased and any apparent difference in respiratory outcomes is unlikely to be related to differing standards of care between centres.
BACKGROUND: Outcome data for UK cystic fibrosis centres are publicly available in an annual report, which ranks centres by median FEV1% predicted. We wished to assess whether there are differences in lung function outcomes between adult centres that might imply differing standards of care. METHODS: UK Registry data from 4761 subjects at 34 anonymised adult centres were used to calculate mean FEV1% and rate of change of lung function for 2007-13. These measures were used to rank centres and compare outcomes. RESULTS: There are minor differences between centres for mean FEV1% for some years of the study and for rate of change of lung function over the study period. However, rankings are critically dependent on the outcome measure chosen and centre variation becomes negligible once patient population characteristics are taken into account. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the ranking of centres is biased and any apparent difference in respiratory outcomes is unlikely to be related to differing standards of care between centres.
Authors: Christopher H Goss; Stephanie J MacNeill; Hebe B Quinton; Bruce C Marshall; Alexander Elbert; Emily A Knapp; Kristofer Petren; Elaine Gunn; Joanne Osmond; Diana Bilton Journal: Thorax Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Michael P Boyle; Kathryn A Sabadosa; Hebe B Quinton; Bruce C Marshall; Michael S Schechter Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Philip H Quanjer; Sanja Stanojevic; Tim J Cole; Xaver Baur; Graham L Hall; Bruce H Culver; Paul L Enright; John L Hankinson; Mary S M Ip; Jinping Zheng; Janet Stocks Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Michael W Konstan; Jeffrey S Wagener; Donald R Vandevanter; David J Pasta; Ashley Yegin; Lawrence Rasouliyan; Wayne J Morgan Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2012-05-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nikki Totton; Mike Bradburn; Zhe Hui Hoo; Jen Lewis; Daniel Hind; Carla Girling; Elizabeth Shepherd; Julia Nightingale; Thomas Daniels; Jane Dewar; Sophie Dawson; Mary Carroll; Mark Allenby; Frank Edenborough; Rachael Curley; Charlotte Carolan; Martin Wildman Journal: Health Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-01