Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Medical Systems 5/2014

01-05-2014 | Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Classifying Hospitals as Mortality Outliers: Logistic Versus Hierarchical Logistic Models

Authors: Roxana Alexandrescu, Alex Bottle, Brian Jarman, Paul Aylin

Published in: Journal of Medical Systems | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

The use of hierarchical logistic regression for provider profiling has been recommended due to the clustering of patients within hospitals, but has some associated difficulties. We assess changes in hospital outlier status based on standard logistic versus hierarchical logistic modelling of mortality. The study population consisted of all patients admitted to acute, non-specialist hospitals in England between 2007 and 2011 with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, acute cerebrovascular disease or fracture of neck of femur or a primary procedure of coronary artery bypass graft or repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. We compared standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) from non-hierarchical models with SMRs from hierarchical models, without and with shrinkage estimates of the predicted probabilities (Model 1 and Model 2). The SMRs from standard logistic and hierarchical models were highly statistically significantly correlated (r > 0.91, p = 0.01). More outliers were recorded in the standard logistic regression than hierarchical modelling only when using shrinkage estimates (Model 2): 21 hospitals (out of a cumulative number of 565 pairs of hospitals under study) changed from a low outlier and 8 hospitals changed from a high outlier based on the logistic regression to a not-an-outlier based on shrinkage estimates. Both standard logistic and hierarchical modelling have identified nearly the same hospitals as mortality outliers. The choice of methodological approach should, however, also consider whether the modelling aim is judgment or improvement, as shrinkage may be more appropriate for the former than the latter.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jarman, B., Gault, S., Alves, B., et al., Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data. BMJ 318:1515–1520, 1999.CrossRef Jarman, B., Gault, S., Alves, B., et al., Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data. BMJ 318:1515–1520, 1999.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bottle, A., and Aylin, P., Intelligent information: A national system for monitoring clinical performance. Health Serv. Res. 43:10–31, 2008.CrossRef Bottle, A., and Aylin, P., Intelligent information: A national system for monitoring clinical performance. Health Serv. Res. 43:10–31, 2008.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Alharbi, O., Rabeneck, L., Paszat, L. F., et al., A population-based analysis of outpatient colonoscopy in adults assisted by an anaesthesiologist. Anaesthesiology 111:734–740, 2009.CrossRef Alharbi, O., Rabeneck, L., Paszat, L. F., et al., A population-based analysis of outpatient colonoscopy in adults assisted by an anaesthesiologist. Anaesthesiology 111:734–740, 2009.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Krumholz, H. M., Brindis, R. G., Brush, J. E., et al., Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes. Circulation 113:456–462, 2006.CrossRef Krumholz, H. M., Brindis, R. G., Brush, J. E., et al., Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes. Circulation 113:456–462, 2006.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference DeLong, E., Hierarchical modeling: Its time has come. Am. Heart J. 145:16–18, 2003.CrossRef DeLong, E., Hierarchical modeling: Its time has come. Am. Heart J. 145:16–18, 2003.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Diez-Roux, A. V., Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 21:171–192, 2000.CrossRef Diez-Roux, A. V., Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 21:171–192, 2000.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Alexandrescu, R., Jen, M. H., Bottle, A., et al., Logistic vs. Hierarchical modeling: An analysis of a statewide inpatient sample. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 213:392–401, 2011.CrossRef Alexandrescu, R., Jen, M. H., Bottle, A., et al., Logistic vs. Hierarchical modeling: An analysis of a statewide inpatient sample. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 213:392–401, 2011.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Sundararajan, V., Henderson, T., Perry, C., et al., New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 57:1288–1294, 2004.CrossRef Sundararajan, V., Henderson, T., Perry, C., et al., New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 57:1288–1294, 2004.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Seccareccia, F., Perucci, C. A., D’Errigo, P., et al., The Italian CABG Outcome Study: Short-term outcomes in patients with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 29:56–62, 2006.CrossRef Seccareccia, F., Perucci, C. A., D’Errigo, P., et al., The Italian CABG Outcome Study: Short-term outcomes in patients with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 29:56–62, 2006.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Grant, S. W., Grayson, A. D., Purkayastha, D., et al., Logistic risk model for mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br. J. Surg. 98:652–658, 2011.CrossRef Grant, S. W., Grayson, A. D., Purkayastha, D., et al., Logistic risk model for mortality following elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br. J. Surg. 98:652–658, 2011.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference SAS Institute Inc, SAS/STAT® 9.2 user’s guide. The GLIMMIX procedure. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 2008. SAS Institute Inc, SAS/STAT® 9.2 user’s guide. The GLIMMIX procedure. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 2008.
21.
go back to reference Cohen, M. E., Dimick, J. B., Bilimoria, K. Y., et al., Risk adjustment in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: A comparison of logistic versus hierarchical modeling. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 209:687–693, 2009.CrossRef Cohen, M. E., Dimick, J. B., Bilimoria, K. Y., et al., Risk adjustment in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: A comparison of logistic versus hierarchical modeling. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 209:687–693, 2009.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Cohen, M. E., Ko, C. Y., Bilimoria, K. Y., et al., Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: Patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 217:336–346, 2013.CrossRef Cohen, M. E., Ko, C. Y., Bilimoria, K. Y., et al., Optimizing ACS NSQIP modeling for evaluation of surgical quality and risk: Patient risk adjustment, procedure mix adjustment, shrinkage adjustment, and surgical focus. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 217:336–346, 2013.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Glance, L. G., Dick, A., Osler, T. M., et al., Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: The case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card. Med. Care 44:311–319, 2006.CrossRef Glance, L. G., Dick, A., Osler, T. M., et al., Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: The case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card. Med. Care 44:311–319, 2006.CrossRef
25.
26.
go back to reference Cook, N. R., Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115:928–935, 2007.CrossRef Cook, N. R., Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation 115:928–935, 2007.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Snijders, T. A. B., and Bosker, R. J., Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications, London, 1999.MATH Snijders, T. A. B., and Bosker, R. J., Multilevel analysis. An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications, London, 1999.MATH
28.
go back to reference D’Errigo, P., Tosti, M. E., Fusco, D., et al., Use of hierarchical models to evaluate performance of cardiac surgery centres in the Italian CABG outcome study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 7:29, 2007.CrossRef D’Errigo, P., Tosti, M. E., Fusco, D., et al., Use of hierarchical models to evaluate performance of cardiac surgery centres in the Italian CABG outcome study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 7:29, 2007.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Hannan, E. L., Wu, C., DeLong, E. R., and Raudenbush, S. W., Predicting risk-adjusted mortality for CABG surgery: Logistic versus hierarchical logistic models. Med. Care 43:726–735, 2005.CrossRef Hannan, E. L., Wu, C., DeLong, E. R., and Raudenbush, S. W., Predicting risk-adjusted mortality for CABG surgery: Logistic versus hierarchical logistic models. Med. Care 43:726–735, 2005.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Austin, P. C., Alter, D. A., and Tu, J. V., The use of fixed- and random-effects models for classifying hospitals as mortality outliers: A Monte Carlo assessment. Med. Decis. Making 23:526–539, 2003.CrossRef Austin, P. C., Alter, D. A., and Tu, J. V., The use of fixed- and random-effects models for classifying hospitals as mortality outliers: A Monte Carlo assessment. Med. Decis. Making 23:526–539, 2003.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Austin, P. C., Tu, J. V., and Alter, D. A., Comparing hierarchical modeling with traditional logistic regression analysis among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: Should we be analyzing cardiovascular outcomes data differently? Am. Heart J. 145:27–35, 2003.CrossRef Austin, P. C., Tu, J. V., and Alter, D. A., Comparing hierarchical modeling with traditional logistic regression analysis among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: Should we be analyzing cardiovascular outcomes data differently? Am. Heart J. 145:27–35, 2003.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Clark, D. E., Hannan, E. L., and Wu, C., Predicting risk adjusted mortality for trauma patients: Logistic versus multilevel logistic models. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 211:224–231, 2010.CrossRef Clark, D. E., Hannan, E. L., and Wu, C., Predicting risk adjusted mortality for trauma patients: Logistic versus multilevel logistic models. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 211:224–231, 2010.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Tan, A., Freeman, J. L., and Freeman, D. H., Jr., Evaluating health care performance: Strengths and limitations of multilevel analysis. Biom. J. 49:707–718, 2007.CrossRefMathSciNet Tan, A., Freeman, J. L., and Freeman, D. H., Jr., Evaluating health care performance: Strengths and limitations of multilevel analysis. Biom. J. 49:707–718, 2007.CrossRefMathSciNet
34.
go back to reference Mohammed, M. A., Manktelow, B. N., and Hofer, T. P., Comparison of four methods for deriving hospital standardised mortality ratios from a single hierarchical logistic regression model. Stat. Methods Med. Res. Nov 6, 2012. Mohammed, M. A., Manktelow, B. N., and Hofer, T. P., Comparison of four methods for deriving hospital standardised mortality ratios from a single hierarchical logistic regression model. Stat. Methods Med. Res. Nov 6, 2012.
35.
go back to reference Bland, J. M., and Altman, D. G., Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:135–160, 1999.CrossRef Bland, J. M., and Altman, D. G., Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:135–160, 1999.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Classifying Hospitals as Mortality Outliers: Logistic Versus Hierarchical Logistic Models
Authors
Roxana Alexandrescu
Alex Bottle
Brian Jarman
Paul Aylin
Publication date
01-05-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0148-5598
Electronic ISSN: 1573-689X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0029-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Journal of Medical Systems 5/2014 Go to the issue