首页> 外文期刊>Journal of gastrointestinal surgery: official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract >Comparison of outlier identification methods in hospital surgical quality improvement programs.
【24h】

Comparison of outlier identification methods in hospital surgical quality improvement programs.

机译:医院手术质量改善计划中异常值识别方法的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Surgeons and hospitals are being increasingly assessed by third parties regarding surgical quality and outcomes, and much of this information is reported publicly. Our objective was to compare various methods used to classify hospitals as outliers in established surgical quality assessment programs by applying each approach to a single data set. METHODS: Using American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data (7/2008-6/2009), hospital risk-adjusted 30-day morbidity and mortality were assessed for general surgery at 231 hospitals (cases = 217,630) and for colorectal surgery at 109 hospitals (cases = 17,251). The number of outliers (poor performers) identified using different methods and criteria were compared. RESULTS: The overall morbidity was 10.3% for general surgery and 25.3% for colorectal surgery. The mortality was 1.6% for general surgery and 4.0% for colorectal surgery. Programs used different methods (logistic regression, hierarchical modeling, partitioning) and criteria (P < 0.01, P < 0.05, P < 0.10) to identify outliers. Depending on outlier identification methods and criteria employed, when each approach was applied to this single dataset, the number of outliers ranged from 7 to 57 hospitals for general surgery morbidity, 1 to 57 hospitals for general surgery mortality, 4 to 27 hospitals for colorectal morbidity, and 0 to 27 hospitals for colorectal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There was considerable variation in the number of outliers identified using different detection approaches. Quality programs seem to be utilizing outlier identification methods contrary to what might be expected, thus they should justify their methodology based on the intent of the program (i.e., quality improvement vs. reimbursement). Surgeons and hospitals should be aware of variability in methods used to assess their performance as these outlier designations will likely have referral and reimbursement consequences.
机译:背景:第三方越来越多地评估外科医生和医院的手术质量和结果,并且许多信息是公开报道的。我们的目标是通过将每种方法应用于单个数据集,比较在建立的手术质量评估程序中将医院分类为异常值的各种方法。方法:使用美国外科医师学会国家外科手术质量改善计划数据(7 / 2008-6 / 2009),对231家医院的普通外科手术(病例= 217,630)和结直肠外科手术进行了医院风险调整后的30天发病率和死亡率进行了评估。在109所医院(病例= 17,251)。比较了使用不同方法和标准确定的异常值(绩效较差)的数量。结果:普外科的总发病率为10.3%,结直肠癌的总发病率为25.3%。普通手术的死亡率为1.6%,结肠直肠手术的死亡率为4.0%。程序使用不同的方法(逻辑回归,层次建模,划分)和标准(P <0.01,P <0.05,P <0.10)来识别异常值。根据所采用的离群值识别方法和标准,将每种方法应用于该单一数据集时,离群值的数量范围从7到57例一般外科手术发病率的医院,1到57例一般外科手术死亡率的医院,4到27例大肠发病率的医院,以及0至27家大肠癌死亡率医院。结论:使用不同的检测方法发现的异常值数量存在很大差异。质量计划似乎在使用离群值识别方法,这与预期的结果相反,因此它们应根据程序的意图(即质量改进与报销)证明其方法论合理。外科医生和医院应意识到用于评估其表现的方法的可变性,因为这些异常值可能会导致转诊和报销。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号