MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hospital-level quality indicators for kidney cancer surgery: A Veteran’s Affairs national health system validation of concept.

2020· article· en· W3007537439 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Aguilar Palacios, Brigid Wilson, Olli Saarela, Mustafa Ascha, Sunah Song, Molly Dewitt‐Foy, Keith A. Lawson, Jill S. Barnholtz‐Sloan, Antonio Finelli, Steven C. Campbell, Robert Abouassaly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVeterans AffairsNephrectomyKidney cancerComorbidityCancerHealthcare systemHealth careEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

667 Background: Validation and implementation of quality indicators (QIs) for oncological surgical care is imperative in national health care systems. However, QIs must be adjusted for significant case-mix variations among hospitals and to capture disparate patient outcomes. Here, we explore and validate a compound quality score (CQS) as a metric for hospital-level quality of care in kidney cancer patients. Methods: Kidney cancer patients (n = 8233) treated at the VA (2005-2015) were identified. Two previously described and validated process QIs were explored: the proportion of patients with a) T1a tumors undergoing partial nephrectomy; and b) T1-T2 tumors undergoing minimally invasive radical nephrectomy. Demographics, comorbidity, tumor characteristics and treatment year were used for case-mix adjustment using indirect standardization / multivariable regression models. The predicted vs observed ratio of cases was calculated to generate each QI score. CQS represents the sum of both QIs scores. Ninety-six hospitals were benchmarked by CQS and patient-level outcomes were regressed on CQS levels to assess for length of stay (LOS), 30 days complications/readmission, 90 days overall mortality and total cost of surgical admission. Results: CQS identified 25, 33 and 38 hospitals with higher, lower and average performance, respectively. Total CQS score was independently associated with LOS [β = -0.04, p< 0.01, predicted LOS 0.84 days shorter for CQS = 2 vs. CQS = -2], 30 days surgical complications [OR = 0.88, p < 0.01] or 30 days medical complications [OR = 0.93, p < 0.01] and total cost of surgical admission [β = -0.014, p< 0.01, predicted 12% lower cost for CQS = 2 vs. CQS = -2]. No association was found between CQS and 30 day readmissions or 90 days mortality (all p>0.05), although low event rates were observed (8.9% and 1.7%, respectively). Conclusions : Variability in quality of surgical care at a hospital-level can be captured with the CQS among kidney cancer patients. CQS is associated with length of stay, post-operative complications and total cost of surgical admission. Quality indicators should be used to identify, audit and implement quality improvement strategies across health systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207