Fixed effects modelling for provider mortality outcomes: Analysis of the Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Adult Patient Data-base
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 9, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
John L Moran1, Patricia J Solomon2,
1Department of Intensive Care Medicine, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, Australia.
Background:
Risk adjusted mortality for intensive care units (ICU) is usually estimated via logistic regression. Random effects (RE) or hierarchical models have been advocated to estimate provider risk-adjusted mortality on the basis that standard estimators increase false outlier classification. The utility of fixed effects (FE) estimators (separate ICU-specific intercepts) has not been fully explored.
Methods:
Using a cohort from the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database, 2009-2010, the model fit of different logistic estimators (FE, random-intercept and random-coefficient) was characterised: Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; lower values better), receiver-operator characteristic curve area (AUC) and Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) statistic. ICU standardised hospital mortality ratios (SMR) and 95%CI were compared between models. ICU site performance (FE), relative to the grand observation-weighted mean (GO-WM) on odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR) and probability scales were assessed using model-based average marginal effects (AME).
Results:
The data set consisted of 145355 patients in 128 ICUs, years 2009 (47.5%) & 2010 (52.5%), with mean(SD) age 60.9(18.8) years, 56% male and ICU and hospital mortalities of 7.0% and 10.9% respectively. The FE model had a BIC = 64058, AUC = 0.90 and an H-L statistic P-value = 0.22. The best-fitting random-intercept model had a BIC = 64457, AUC = 0.90 and H-L statistic P-value = 0.32 and random-coefficient model, BIC = 64556, AUC = 0.90 and H-L statistic P-value = 0.28. Across ICUs and over years no outliers (SMR 95% CI excluding null-value = 1) were identified and no model difference in SMR spread or 95%CI span was demonstrated. Using AME (OR and RR scale), ICU site-specific estimates diverged from the GO-WM, and the effect spread decreased over calendar years. On the probability scale, a majority of ICUs demonstrated calendar year decrease, but in the for-profit sector, this trend was reversed.
Conclusions:
The FE estimator had model advantage compared with conventional RE models. Using AME, between and over-year ICU site-effects were easily characterised.
Related Concept Videos
Introduction To Survival Analysis
The primary goal of survival analysis is to estimate survival time—the time until a...
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Assumptions of Survival Analysis
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Cancer Survival Analysis