Related Experiment Videos
Comparing risk-adjustment methods for provider profiling
E R DeLong1, E D Peterson, D M DeLong
1Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Department of Medicine, Durham, NC 27705-4667, USA.
Insights
This study compares eight risk-adjustment methods for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) quality assessment. It evaluates how different methods identify provider performance and outlier status for in-hospital mortality.
Area of Science:
- Health Services Research
- Medical Quality Improvement
- Cardiovascular Surgery Outcomes
Background:
- Risk-adjustment and provider profiling are crucial for assessing healthcare quality and value.
- Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) quality assessment is well-developed, with extensive study of in-hospital mortality.
- Existing risk-adjustment mechanisms are used for provider profiling in CABG surgery.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop a common metric for displaying risk-adjustment results for dichotomous outcomes like in-hospital mortality.
- To compare how various risk-adjustment methods quantify provider outlier status.
- To evaluate eight distinct risk-adjustment methodologies in a CABG surgery population.
Main Methods:
- Comparison of eight risk-adjustment methods applied to 28 CABG providers.
- Utilizing five external risk-adjustment algorithms developed in independent populations.
- Employing three internally developed logistic models for risk adjustment.
Main Results:
- Demonstration of applying risk-adjustment methods to a quality improvement dataset.
- Presentation of results comparing external and internal risk-adjustment algorithms.
- Analysis of how different methods quantify provider performance and outlier status.
Conclusions:
- The study provides a framework for comparing risk-adjustment methodologies in CABG surgery.
- Findings aid in understanding the impact of different risk-adjustment approaches on provider profiling.
- Results contribute to refining quality assessment and value measurement in cardiovascular care.
Abstract:
Risk-adjustment and provider profiling have become common terms as the medical profession attempts to measure quality and assess value in health care. One of the areas of care most thoroughly developed in this regard is quality assessment for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Because in-hospital mortality following CABG has been studied extensively, risk-adjustment mechanisms are already being used in this area for provider profiling. This study compares eight different risk-adjustment methods as applied to a CABG surgery population of 28 providers. Five of the methods use an external risk-adjustment algorithm developed in an independent population, while the other three rely on an internally developed logistic model. The purposes of this study are to: (i) create a common metric by which to display the results of these various risk-adjustment methodologies with regard to dichotomous outcomes such as in-hospital mortality, and (ii) to compare how these risk-adjustment methods quantify the 'outlier' standing of providers. Section 2 describes the data, the external and internal risk-adjustment algorithms, and eight approaches to provider profiling. Section 3 then demonstrates the results of applying these methods on a data set specifically collected for quality improvement.