Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Case mix adjustment in comparative audit

C Hayes1, G D Murray

  • 1University of Glasgow, UK.

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
|November 1, 1995
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evidence for the Collective Nature of Radial Flow in Pb+Pb Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Evidence for the Dimuon Decay of the Higgs Boson in pp Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Asthma Exacerbations Requiring ICU: Risk Factors and Challenges in Management.

Irish medical journal·2025
Same author

Evidence for Longitudinally Polarized W Bosons in the Electroweak Production of Same-Sign W Boson Pairs in Association with Two Jets in pp Collisions at sqrt[s]=13  TeV with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Conservative management of perforation of a duodenal diverticulum.

Irish medical journal·2025
Same author

Observation of tt[over ¯] Production in Pb+Pb Collisions at sqrt[s_{NN}]=5.02  TeV with the ATLAS Detector.

Physical review letters·2025
Same journal

Evaluating Restraint and Seclusion as Care Processes Rather Than Compliance Metrics.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Burden in Informal Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients With Pressure Injuries: Perceived Social Support and Influencing Factors Care Burden in Palliative Caregivers.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Organisational Problems, Role Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Emergency Department Workers: A Multicenter Mixed-Effects Study.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Highlighting a Systemic Bias in the Responder Odds Ratio.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Epistemological Issues in Clinical Reasoning: A Scoping Review.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

An Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
See all related articles

Evaluating healthcare quality using statistical models requires careful consideration of case-mix adjustment. Current clinical scoring systems often fail to meet necessary criteria, potentially masking true performance differences.

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Epidemiology

Background:

  • Increasing pressure exists to measure and publicize healthcare quality, exemplified by hospital 'league tables'.
  • Simplistic data presentations can be misleading due to unadjusted differences in patient case mix.
  • Recognition of the need for sophisticated statistical methods to accurately compare clinical performance.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To define the statistical modeling requirements for accurate, case-mix-adjusted comparisons of clinical performance.
  • To critically evaluate existing clinical scoring systems against these requirements.
  • To identify limitations in current systems and suggest areas for future research.

Main Methods:

  • Discussion of essential criteria for statistical models used in performance comparisons.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review and critique of established clinical scoring systems.
  • Analysis of potential biases within existing scoring systems.

    • Main Results:

    • Established clinical scoring systems often fail to meet the criteria for effective case-mix adjustment.
    • Key requirements include well-defined outcome measures and risk factors reflecting prognosis, not care.
    • Model calibration is crucial for reliable comparisons.

    Conclusions:

    • Existing clinical scoring systems possess biases that can obscure true performance variations.
    • Further research is needed to develop robust statistical models for healthcare quality assessment.
    • Accurate case-mix adjustment is essential for meaningful comparisons of clinical performance.