The Hospital Compare Mortality Model and the Volume-Outcome Relationship

Center for Outcomes Research, 3535 Market Street, Suite 1029, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.78). 10/2010; 45(5 Pt 1):1148-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01130.x
Source: PubMed


We ask whether Medicare's Hospital Compare random effects model correctly assesses acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospital mortality rates when there is a volume-outcome relationship.
Medicare claims on 208,157 AMI patients admitted in 3,629 acute care hospitals throughout the United States.
We compared average-adjusted mortality using logistic regression with average adjusted mortality based on the Hospital Compare random effects model. We then fit random effects models with the same patient variables as in Medicare's Hospital Compare mortality model but also included terms for hospital Medicare AMI volume and another model that additionally included other hospital characteristics.
Hospital Compare's average adjusted mortality significantly underestimates average observed death rates in small volume hospitals. Placing hospital volume in the Hospital Compare model significantly improved predictions.
The Hospital Compare random effects model underestimates the typically poorer performance of low-volume hospitals. Placing hospital volume in the Hospital Compare model, and possibly other important hospital characteristics, appears indicated when using a random effects model to predict outcomes. Care must be taken to insure the proper method of reporting such models, especially if hospital characteristics are included in the random effects model.

13 Reads
  • Source
    • "Some operative features that may be associated with outcomes are identifiable from ICD-9 codes, including use of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), surgical approach (anterior, posterior, or combined/circumferential), an indicator of whether fusion was combined with a decompression, and an indicator of whether 3+ disc levels were fused (Fritzell, Hagg et al. 2002; Deyo et al. 2010, 2012; Mirza 2011; Cizik et al. 2012). We also included the attending surgeon's fusion volume in the preceding 365 days to account for any potential association between-surgeon experience and outcomes (Silber et al. 2010). This measure of recent volume may be a better indicator of surgeon experience than the annual or the cumulative volume, both of which may be prone to misclassification (French and Heagerty 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify factors that account for variation in complication rates across hospitals and surgeons performing lumbar spinal fusion surgery. Discharge registry including all nonfederal hospitals in Washington State from 2004 to 2007. We identified adults (n = 6,091) undergoing an initial inpatient lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. We identified whether each patient had a subsequent complication within 90 days. Logistic regression models with hospital and surgeon random effects were used to examine complications, controlling for patient characteristics and comorbidity. Complications within 90 days of a fusion occurred in 4.8 percent of patients, and 2.2 percent had a reoperation. Hospital effects accounted for 8.8 percent of the total variability, and surgeon effects account for 14.4 percent. Surgeon factors account for 54.5 percent of the variation in hospital reoperation rates, and 47.2 percent of the variation in hospital complication rates. The discretionary use of operative features, such as the inclusion of bone morphogenetic proteins, accounted for 30 and 50 percent of the variation in surgeons' reoperation and complication rates, respectively. To improve the safety of lumbar spinal fusion surgery, quality improvement efforts that focus on surgeons' discretionary use of operative techniques may be more effective than those that target hospitals.
    Health Services Research 06/2012; 48(1). DOI:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01434.x · 2.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test for racial or ethnic disparities or both in periviable cesarean delivery and describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with periviable cesarean delivery. This was a retrospective cohort study of state-level maternal and neonatal hospital discharge data linked to vital statistics data for deliveries occurring between 23 0/7 and 24 6/7 [corrected] weeks of gestation in California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2005 (N=8,290). Approximately 79% of the population was aged 18-35 years, and almost half were nulliparous. Almost 20% of the women were African American, 36.4% were Hispanic, and 33.6% were white. Overall, 33.6% of periviable neonates were delivered by cesarean. In multivariable analyses adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, cesarean delivery did not differ among African American and Hispanic women compared with white women (odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.05; and OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83-1.09, respectively). Women presenting with preterm labor were significantly less likely to undergo cesarean delivery (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96), whereas women presenting with preterm premature rupture of membranes (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.45) or abruption (OR 2.43, 95% CI 2.09-2.81) were more likely to have cesarean deliveries. The strongest predictor of periviable cesarean delivery was pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 15.6.4, 95% CI 12.3-19.7). Unlike disparities observed at later gestational ages, cesarean delivery did not differ by race and ethnicity among this periviable cohort. Instead, medical indications such as pregnancy-induced hypertension, preterm premature rupture of membranes, or abruption were associated with a higher likelihood of cesarean delivery. Periviable deliveries represent a subset of deliveries, wherein race and ethnicity do not influence mode of delivery; the acuity of the clinical encounter dictates the course of care.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 07/2011; 118(1):49-56. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821c4071 · 5.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Reply: Dr Moscovice and Ms Casey appropriately highlight their ongoing work tracking quality at CAHs1; this work is essential to helping CAHs improve the care they provide. Our work adds to theirs by placing CAHs in a larger context, comparing them with other acute care hospitals in the United States, and increasing awareness about the unique challenges they face.Moscovice and Casey, as well as Dr Westfall and colleagues, bring up important analytic points. We concur that an unadjusted comparison with large, urban teaching hospitals is not appropriate. For that reason, our analytic approach adjusted for clinical volume, location, and teaching status, among other factors. We also accounted for hospice use, which differs between CAHs and non-CAHs. The fact that mortality differences persisted after accounting for these dissimilarities suggests that additional efforts are needed to improve care at CAHs. We also agree that nontransferred patients may be older and sicker than those who are transferred, and our finding that the difference between CAHs and non-CAHs widened when we excluded transferred patients supports this. Transfers that originate from the ED of a CAH are not counted toward that hospital's performance, either in our analysis or by CMS for public reporting, and we agree that this should be explored further. Appropriate transfer from an ED could be a useful quality metric for CAHs and other small hospitals.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 10/2011; 306(15):1653-1655. DOI:10.1001/jama.2011.1490 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

13 Reads
Available from