Comparison of composite measure methodologies for rewarding quality of care: an analysis from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines program.

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (Impact Factor: 5.04). 11/2011; 4(6):610-8. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.961391
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Composite indices of health care performance are an aggregation of underlying individual performance measures and are increasingly being used to rank hospitals. We sought to conduct an observational analysis to determine the influence of the opportunity-based and all-or-none composite performance measures on hospital rankings.
We examined 194 245 patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction between July 2006 and June 2009 from 334 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines--Coronary Artery Disease (GWTG-CAD) quality improvement program. We analyzed hospital opportunity-based and all-or-none composite scores and 30-day risk-standardized all-cause mortality and readmission rates. We found that the median calculated opportunity-based score for these hospitals was 95.5 (interquartile range, 90.4, 98.0). The median all-or-none score was 88.9 (interquartile range, 79.7, 94.4). The 2 scoring methods were significantly correlated with one another (r=0.98, P<0.001). Rankings generated by the two methods were significantly correlated (r=0.93, P<0.001). The two methods had a modest correlation with the 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate (opportunity-based score: r=-0.25, P<0.001; all-or-none score: r=-0.24, P<0.001). Neither composite measure correlated with the 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate. Over time, the number of hospitals new to the top and bottom quintiles of hospital rankings diminished similarly for both composite measures. When including additional performance measures into the composite score, the two methods produced similar changes in hospital rankings.
The opportunity-based and all-or-none coronary artery disease composite indices are highly correlated and yield similar ranking of the top and bottom quintiles of hospitals. The two methods provide similarly modest correlations with 30-day mortality, but not readmission.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care is increasingly evaluated using composite quality scores. We investigated the influence of three aggregation methods for an AMI indicator on mortality and hospital rank. We studied 136,392 patients discharged alive from 199 hospitals with AMI recorded in the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project, between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2009. A composite of prescription of aspirin, thienopyridine inhibitor, β-blocker, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, HMG CoA reductase enzyme inhibitor and enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation at discharge was aggregated as opportunity based (OBCS), weighted opportunity-based (WOBCS) and all-or-nothing (ANCS) scores. We quantified adjusted 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates and hospital performance rank. Median (IQR) scores were OBCS: 95.0% (3.5), WOBCS: 94.7% (0.8) and ANCS: 80.9% (11.8). The three methods affected the proportion of hospitals outside 99.8% credible limits of the national median (OBCS: 52.2%, WOBCS: 64.3% and ANCS: 37.7%) and hospital rank. Each 1% increase in composite score was significantly associated with a 1 to 3% and a 4% reduction in 6-month and 1-year mortality, respectively. However, the ANCS had fewer cases and no significant association with 30-day mortality. A hospital composite score, incorporating 6 aspects of AMI care, was significantly inversely associated with mortality. However, composite aggregation method influenced hospital rank, number of cases available for analysis and size of the association with all-cause mortality, with the ANCS performing least well. The use and choice of composite scores in hospital AMI quality improvement requires careful evaluation.
    International journal of cardiology 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.10.027 · 6.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reports "core process of care measures" along with 30-day mortality rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction; the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association has a similar but expanded set of performance measures. We sought to determine whether hospital-level adherence with these process performance measures was associated with risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality among 96,340 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 145,832 non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry® ACTION Registry-Get With the Guidelines™ admitted from January 2007 to March 2011 from 372 US sites. Hospitals were grouped based on risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality: low (20%), middle (60%), and high mortality (20%). The mean (SD) mortality from low to high hospital mortality groups for STEMI was 4.9% (0.9%), 5.8% (0.3%), and 7.0% (0.5%); and that for NSTEMI was 3.3% (0.2%), 4.0% (0.2%), and 4.9% (0.3%). Adherence to individual process measures was high, with composite measure adherences exceeding 88%. Composite adherence for both CMS and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association performance measures was inversely associated with risk-adjusted hospital mortality. However, the association was low for STEMI hospitals and not significant for NSTEMI hospitals. Variation tended to be higher for CMS measures for higher-mortality hospitals. Although process performance was associated with hospital mortality, the association was low for STEMI and nonsignificant for NSTEMI hospitals, thus supporting the need to measure complementary metrics of acute myocardial infarction quality of care. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    American Heart Journal 11/2014; 168(5):766-75. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2014.07.005 · 4.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate whether a hospital-specific opportunity-based composite score (OBCS) was associated with mortality in 136,392 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) using data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) 2008-2009. For 199 hospitals a multidimensional hospital OBCS was calculated on the number of times that aspirin, thienopyridine, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), statin, β-blocker, and referral for cardiac rehabilitation was given to individual patients, divided by the overall number of opportunities that hospitals had to give that care. OBCS and its six components were compared using funnel plots. Associations between OBCS performance and 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality were quantified using mixed-effects regression analysis. Median hospital OBCS was 95.3% (range 75.8-100%). By OBCS, 24.1% of hospitals were below funnel plot 99.8% CI, compared to aspirin (11.1%), thienopyridine (15.1%), β-blockers (14.7%), ACEi (19.1%), statins (12.1%), and cardiac rehabilitation (17.6%) on discharge. Mortality (95% CI) decreased with increasing hospital OBCS quartile at 30 days [Q1, 2.25% (2.07-2.43%) vs. Q4, 1.40% (1.25-1.56%)] and 6 months [Q1, 7.93% (7.61-8.25%) vs. Q4, 5.53% (5.22-5.83%)]. Hospital OBCS quartile was inversely associated with adjusted 30-day and 6-month mortality [OR (95% CI), 0.87 (0.80-0.94) and 0.92 (0.88-0.96), respectively] and persisted after adjustment for coronary artery catheterization [0.89 (0.82-0.96) and 0.95 (0.91-0.98), respectively]. Multidimensional hospital OBCS in AMI survivors are high, discriminate hospital performance more readily than single performance indicators, and significantly inversely predict early and longer-term mortality.
    03/2013; 2(1):9-18. DOI:10.1177/2048872612469132