Literature DB >> 31032438

Development and validation of risk-adjustment models for elective, single-level posterior lumbar spinal fusions.

David N Bernstein1, Aakash Keswani2, Debbie Chi2, James E Dowdell2, Samuel C Overley2, Saad B Chaudhary2, Addisu Mesfin1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature examining the development and subsequent validation of risk-adjustment models that inform the trade-off between adequate risk-adjustment and data collection burden. We aimed to evaluate patient risk stratification by surgeons with the development and validation of risk-adjustment models for elective, single-level, posterior lumbar spinal fusions (PLSFs).
METHODS: Patients undergoing PLSF from 2011-2014 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). The derivation cohort included patients from 2011-2013, while the validation cohort included patients from 2014. Outcomes of interest were severe adverse events (SAEs) and unplanned readmission. Bivariate analysis of risk factors followed by a stepwise logistic regression model was used. Limited risk-adjustment models were created and analyzed by sequentially adding variables until the full model was reached.
RESULTS: A total of 7,192 and 4,182 patients were included in our derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Full model performance was similar for the derivation and validation cohorts in both 30-day SAEs (C-statistic =0.66 vs. 0.69) and 30-day unplanned readmission (C-statistic =0.62 vs. 0.65). All models demonstrated good calibration and fit (P≥0.58). Intraoperative variables, laboratory values, and comorbid conditions explained >75% of the variation in 30-day SAEs; ASA class, laboratory values, and comorbid conditions accounted for >80% of model risk prediction for 30-day unplanned readmission. Four variables for the 30-day SAE models (age, gender, ASA ≥3, operative time) and 3 variables for the 30-day unplanned readmission models (age, ASA ≥3, operative time) were sufficient to achieve a C-statistic within four percentage points of the full model.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adjustment models for PLSF demonstrated acceptable calibration and discrimination using variables commonly found in health records and demonstrated only a limited set of variables were required to achieve an appropriate level of risk prediction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Posterior lumbar spinal fusion (PLSF); adverse events; big data; national database; readmission; risk stratification

Year:  2019        PMID: 31032438      PMCID: PMC6465455          DOI: 10.21037/jss.2018.12.11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2414-4630


  27 in total

1.  Using financial incentives to improve value in orthopaedics.

Authors:  David Lansky; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Use of diagnosis-based risk adjustment models to predict individual health care expenditure under the National Health Insurance system in Taiwan.

Authors:  Ray-E Chang; Chiu-Ling Lai
Journal:  J Formos Med Assoc       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Diagnosis-based risk adjustment and Australian health system policy.

Authors:  Ronald Donato; Jeffrey Richardson
Journal:  Aust Health Rev       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.990

4.  Hospital characteristics associated with success in a pay-for-performance program in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Timothy Bhattacharyya; Priyesh Mehta; Andrew A Freiberg
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008.

Authors:  Sean S Rajaee; Hyun W Bae; Linda E A Kanim; Rick B Delamarter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Risk adjustment for comparing hospital quality with surgery: how many variables are needed?

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Nicholas H Osborne; Bruce L Hall; Clifford Y Ko; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.113

7.  A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications.

Authors:  Elise H Lawson; Rachel Louie; David S Zingmond; Robert H Brook; Bruce L Hall; Lein Han; Michael Rapp; Clifford Y Ko
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Measuring the report card: the validity of pay-for-performance metrics in orthopedic surgery.

Authors:  Timothy Bhattacharyya; Andrew A Freiberg; Priyesh Mehta; Jeffrey Neil Katz; Timothy Ferris
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Using automated clinical data for risk adjustment: development and validation of six disease-specific mortality predictive models for pay-for-performance.

Authors:  Ying P Tabak; Richard S Johannes; Jeffrey H Silber
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiers.

Authors:  Bradley G Hammill; Adrian F Hernandez; Eric D Peterson; Gregg C Fonarow; Kevin A Schulman; Lesley H Curtis
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.749

View more
  1 in total

1.  Epidemiological Relevance of Elevated Preoperative Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Scores on Clinical Improvement Following Lumbar Decompression.

Authors:  James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Elliot D K Cha; Conor P Lynch; Cara E Geoghegan; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.