MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331472109 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000000130

Are all deaths recorded equally? The impact of hospice care on risk-adjusted mortality

2014· article· en· W2331472109 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemary A. Kozar, John B. Holcomb, Wei Xiong, Avery B. Nathens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionConfidence intervalOdds ratioWilcoxon signed-rank testEmergency medicineDemographyInternal medicineMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hospice care provides dignity and comfort at the end of life. While patients transferred to hospice die, they are often not recorded as in-hospital deaths in trauma registries or in some administrative discharge data. Mortality rates for the purpose of database research, performance improvement, or public reporting may therefore be artificially low. The current study sought to determine the impact of discharges to hospice on risk-adjusted mortality for trauma deaths reported to the Trauma Quality Improvement Program. METHODS: Performance from Trauma Quality Improvement Program centers in 2011 was evaluated using risk-adjusted mortality with observed-to-expected mortality ratios derived from a logistic regression model. The impact of discharge to hospice on performance was measured by determining changes in performance if hospice cases were treated as survivors rather than deaths. Differences between groups were compared by nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: From the 167 centers with 126,259 injured patients, there were 8,862 deaths: 746 (8.4%) were discharged to a hospice, and the remainder was counted as in-hospital deaths. Overall, 106 centers (63.5%) reported at least one discharge to hospice, with the proportion of deaths ranging from 1.6% to 57%. Logistic regression demonstrated that age greater than 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-5.1), male sex (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.8), nonblack race (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7), noncommercial insurance (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7), and comorbidity counts greater than 2 (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6) were associated with hospice care. If patients transferred to a hospice were treated as survivors in the estimation of risk-adjusted mortality, 34 centers (20%) would have a change in status. Changes would be in both directions for average-performing centers, while high-performing centers would seem worse and poor-performing centers would seem better. For centers that reported hospice deaths, the relative risk-adjusted mortality decreased by 8.8% for every 10% increase in the proportion of deaths recorded as discharged to a hospice. CONCLUSION: Given the large variation in the proportion of deaths recorded as discharged to a hospice rather than as in-hospital deaths, there is the potential for significant distortion of actual performance. Failure to consider this potential may misguide efforts directing performance improvement, research, and national reporting. Discharges to a hospice should be included with in-hospital deaths when reporting risk-adjusted mortality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207