Loading…
Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes
Using existing data sources, we developed three risk-adjusted measures of hospital quality: the risk-adjusted mortality index (RAMI), the risk-adjusted readmissions index (RARI), and the risk-adjusted complication index (RACI). We describe the construction and validation of each of these indexes. Af...
Saved in:
Published in: | Health services research 1991-10, Vol.26 (4), p.425-445 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 445 |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 425 |
container_title | Health services research |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | DesHarnais, S McMahon, Jr, L F Wroblewski, R |
description | Using existing data sources, we developed three risk-adjusted measures of hospital quality: the risk-adjusted mortality index (RAMI), the risk-adjusted readmissions index (RARI), and the risk-adjusted complication index (RACI). We describe the construction and validation of each of these indexes. After these measures were developed, we tested the relationships among the three indexes using a sample of 300 hospitals. Actual numbers of adverse events were observed for each hospital and compared to the number predicted by the RAMI, RARI, and RACI models. Then each hospital was ranked on each index. Our results showed that no relationship existed between a hospital's ranking on any one of these indexes and its ranking on the other two indexes. This result provides some evidence that no measure of quality should be used by itself to represent different aspects of the quality of hospital care. Adequate overall measures of hospital quality will need to include multiple measures in order to be credible and to reflect the complexity of hospital care. The findings suggest that consumers, payers, and policymakers cannot simply choose one hospitalwide measure, such as the mortality rate, to validly represent a hospital's performance: those hospitals with high rankings on their mortality rates do not necessarily rank high on their readmission rates or complication rates. |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1069835</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A11498830</galeid><sourcerecordid>A11498830</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g325t-c44b052878cf0aaada4ef8a31f5307ffa7ac4bc106d4b7ba14c89fce9bdf78723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkcFKxDAQhosouq4-glA8eLKQNKlJL8KyqCus7EXPYZpOata0WZtG1re3souopzn8Hx__zBwkE8pFkd0IwQ6TCSFUZCXN-UlyGsKaECKZ5MfJMS2pKAiZJIsnhBB72zWpj4P2LYbUm_TVh40dwKUaekxj-M7b6Aa7cZj2NrxlUK9jGLBObVfjFsNZcmTABTzfz2nycn_3PF9ky9XD43y2zBqWF0OmOa9IkUshtSEAUANHI4FRUzAijAEBmleakpuaV6ICyrUsjcayqo2QImfT5Hbn3cSqxVpjN_Tg1Ka3LfSfyoNVf5POvqrGf6hRWUpWjIKrvaD37xHDoFobNDoHHfoYlMgpyyUnI3j5D1z72HfjciqnVOQloXSErndQAw6V7bTvBtyOh3QOG1Tj6vOVmlHKSynZt_Pid_uf2vt_sC9OBok-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>211729011</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>PubMed Central(OpenAccess)</source><creator>DesHarnais, S ; McMahon, Jr, L F ; Wroblewski, R</creator><creatorcontrib>DesHarnais, S ; McMahon, Jr, L F ; Wroblewski, R</creatorcontrib><description>Using existing data sources, we developed three risk-adjusted measures of hospital quality: the risk-adjusted mortality index (RAMI), the risk-adjusted readmissions index (RARI), and the risk-adjusted complication index (RACI). We describe the construction and validation of each of these indexes. After these measures were developed, we tested the relationships among the three indexes using a sample of 300 hospitals. Actual numbers of adverse events were observed for each hospital and compared to the number predicted by the RAMI, RARI, and RACI models. Then each hospital was ranked on each index. Our results showed that no relationship existed between a hospital's ranking on any one of these indexes and its ranking on the other two indexes. This result provides some evidence that no measure of quality should be used by itself to represent different aspects of the quality of hospital care. Adequate overall measures of hospital quality will need to include multiple measures in order to be credible and to reflect the complexity of hospital care. The findings suggest that consumers, payers, and policymakers cannot simply choose one hospitalwide measure, such as the mortality rate, to validly represent a hospital's performance: those hospitals with high rankings on their mortality rates do not necessarily rank high on their readmission rates or complication rates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-9124</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-6773</identifier><identifier>PMID: 1917500</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HESEA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Health Research and Educational Trust</publisher><subject>Abstracting and Indexing as Topic ; Comparative studies ; Evaluation ; Health care delivery ; Health risk assessment ; Health Services Research - methods ; Hospital care ; Hospital Mortality ; Hospitalization ; Hospitals ; Hospitals - standards ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Medical statistics ; Methods ; Mortality ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Patient Readmission - statistics & numerical data ; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology ; Quality of service ; Ratings & rankings ; Regression Analysis ; Risk ; Risk Factors ; Statistical analysis ; Statistics ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Health services research, 1991-10, Vol.26 (4), p.425-445</ispartof><rights>Copyright Hospital Research and Educational Trust Oct 1991</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069835/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069835/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,30999,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1917500$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>DesHarnais, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMahon, Jr, L F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wroblewski, R</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes</title><title>Health services research</title><addtitle>Health Serv Res</addtitle><description>Using existing data sources, we developed three risk-adjusted measures of hospital quality: the risk-adjusted mortality index (RAMI), the risk-adjusted readmissions index (RARI), and the risk-adjusted complication index (RACI). We describe the construction and validation of each of these indexes. After these measures were developed, we tested the relationships among the three indexes using a sample of 300 hospitals. Actual numbers of adverse events were observed for each hospital and compared to the number predicted by the RAMI, RARI, and RACI models. Then each hospital was ranked on each index. Our results showed that no relationship existed between a hospital's ranking on any one of these indexes and its ranking on the other two indexes. This result provides some evidence that no measure of quality should be used by itself to represent different aspects of the quality of hospital care. Adequate overall measures of hospital quality will need to include multiple measures in order to be credible and to reflect the complexity of hospital care. The findings suggest that consumers, payers, and policymakers cannot simply choose one hospitalwide measure, such as the mortality rate, to validly represent a hospital's performance: those hospitals with high rankings on their mortality rates do not necessarily rank high on their readmission rates or complication rates.</description><subject>Abstracting and Indexing as Topic</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health care delivery</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Health Services Research - methods</subject><subject>Hospital care</subject><subject>Hospital Mortality</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Hospitals - standards</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Medical statistics</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Patient Readmission - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</subject><subject>Quality of service</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>0017-9124</issn><issn>1475-6773</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1991</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkcFKxDAQhosouq4-glA8eLKQNKlJL8KyqCus7EXPYZpOata0WZtG1re3souopzn8Hx__zBwkE8pFkd0IwQ6TCSFUZCXN-UlyGsKaECKZ5MfJMS2pKAiZJIsnhBB72zWpj4P2LYbUm_TVh40dwKUaekxj-M7b6Aa7cZj2NrxlUK9jGLBObVfjFsNZcmTABTzfz2nycn_3PF9ky9XD43y2zBqWF0OmOa9IkUshtSEAUANHI4FRUzAijAEBmleakpuaV6ICyrUsjcayqo2QImfT5Hbn3cSqxVpjN_Tg1Ka3LfSfyoNVf5POvqrGf6hRWUpWjIKrvaD37xHDoFobNDoHHfoYlMgpyyUnI3j5D1z72HfjciqnVOQloXSErndQAw6V7bTvBtyOh3QOG1Tj6vOVmlHKSynZt_Pid_uf2vt_sC9OBok-</recordid><startdate>19911001</startdate><enddate>19911001</enddate><creator>DesHarnais, S</creator><creator>McMahon, Jr, L F</creator><creator>Wroblewski, R</creator><general>Health Research and Educational Trust</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19911001</creationdate><title>Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes</title><author>DesHarnais, S ; McMahon, Jr, L F ; Wroblewski, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g325t-c44b052878cf0aaada4ef8a31f5307ffa7ac4bc106d4b7ba14c89fce9bdf78723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1991</creationdate><topic>Abstracting and Indexing as Topic</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health care delivery</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Health Services Research - methods</topic><topic>Hospital care</topic><topic>Hospital Mortality</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Hospitals - standards</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Medical statistics</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Patient Readmission - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - epidemiology</topic><topic>Quality of service</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DesHarnais, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMahon, Jr, L F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wroblewski, R</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health services research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DesHarnais, S</au><au>McMahon, Jr, L F</au><au>Wroblewski, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes</atitle><jtitle>Health services research</jtitle><addtitle>Health Serv Res</addtitle><date>1991-10-01</date><risdate>1991</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>425</spage><epage>445</epage><pages>425-445</pages><issn>0017-9124</issn><eissn>1475-6773</eissn><coden>HESEA5</coden><abstract>Using existing data sources, we developed three risk-adjusted measures of hospital quality: the risk-adjusted mortality index (RAMI), the risk-adjusted readmissions index (RARI), and the risk-adjusted complication index (RACI). We describe the construction and validation of each of these indexes. After these measures were developed, we tested the relationships among the three indexes using a sample of 300 hospitals. Actual numbers of adverse events were observed for each hospital and compared to the number predicted by the RAMI, RARI, and RACI models. Then each hospital was ranked on each index. Our results showed that no relationship existed between a hospital's ranking on any one of these indexes and its ranking on the other two indexes. This result provides some evidence that no measure of quality should be used by itself to represent different aspects of the quality of hospital care. Adequate overall measures of hospital quality will need to include multiple measures in order to be credible and to reflect the complexity of hospital care. The findings suggest that consumers, payers, and policymakers cannot simply choose one hospitalwide measure, such as the mortality rate, to validly represent a hospital's performance: those hospitals with high rankings on their mortality rates do not necessarily rank high on their readmission rates or complication rates.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Health Research and Educational Trust</pub><pmid>1917500</pmid><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0017-9124 |
ispartof | Health services research, 1991-10, Vol.26 (4), p.425-445 |
issn | 0017-9124 1475-6773 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1069835 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); PubMed Central(OpenAccess) |
subjects | Abstracting and Indexing as Topic Comparative studies Evaluation Health care delivery Health risk assessment Health Services Research - methods Hospital care Hospital Mortality Hospitalization Hospitals Hospitals - standards Humans Logistic Models Medical statistics Methods Mortality Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods Patient Readmission - statistics & numerical data Postoperative Complications - epidemiology Quality of service Ratings & rankings Regression Analysis Risk Risk Factors Statistical analysis Statistics United States - epidemiology |
title | Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T08%3A51%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20outcomes%20of%20hospital%20care%20using%20multiple%20risk-adjusted%20indexes&rft.jtitle=Health%20services%20research&rft.au=DesHarnais,%20S&rft.date=1991-10-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=425&rft.epage=445&rft.pages=425-445&rft.issn=0017-9124&rft.eissn=1475-6773&rft.coden=HESEA5&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA11498830%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g325t-c44b052878cf0aaada4ef8a31f5307ffa7ac4bc106d4b7ba14c89fce9bdf78723%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=211729011&rft_id=info:pmid/1917500&rft_galeid=A11498830&rfr_iscdi=true |