Profiling Hospital Performance Based on Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public reporting of hospital-level outcomes is increasingly common as a means to target quality improvement strategies to ensure the delivery of optimal care. Despite the rapid dissemination of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there is a paucity of reliable case-mix adjustment models for hospital profiling in TAVR. Our objective was to develop and evaluate different models for calculating risk-standardized all-cause mortality rates (RSMRs) post-TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this population-based study in Ontario, Canada, we identified all patients who underwent a TAVR procedure between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2016. For each hospital, we calculated 30-day and 1-year RSMR, using 2-level hierarchical logistic regression models that accounted for patient-specific demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the clustering of patients within the same hospital using a hospital-specific random effects. We classified each hospital into one of 3 groups: performing worse than expected, better than expected, or performing as expected, based on whether the 95% CI of the RSMR was above, below, or included the provincial average mortality rate, respectively. Our cohort consisted of 2129 TAVR procedures performed at 10 hospitals. The observed mortality was 7.0% at 30 days and 16.4% at 1 year, with a range of 4% to 10% and 8% to 22%, respectively, across hospitals. We developed case-mix adjustment models using 28 clinically relevant variables. Using 30-day and 1-year RSMR to profile each hospital, we found that all hospitals performed as expected, with 95% CI that included the provincial average. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant interhospital variation in RSMR among hospitals, suggesting that quality improvement efforts should be directed at aspects other than the variation in observed 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".