A Comparison of statistical methods for hospital performance assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During hospital quality improvement activities, statistical approaches are critical to help assess hospital performance for benchmarking. Current statistical approaches are used primarily for research and reimbursement purposes. In this multiinstitutional study, these established statistical methods were evaluated for quality improvement applications. Leveraging a dataset of 42,199 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting surgery from 2014 to 2016 across 90 hospitals, six statistical approaches were applied. The non-shrinkage methods were: (1) indirect standardization without hospital effect; (2) indirect standardization with hospital fixed effect; (3) direct standardization with hospital fixed effect. The shrinkage methods were: (4) indirect standardization with hospital random effect; (5) direct standardization with hospital random effect; (6) Bayesian method. Hospital performance related to operative mortality and major morbidity or mortality was compared across methods based on variation in adjusted rates, rankings, and performance outliers. Method performance was evaluated across procedure volume terciles: small (< 96 cases/year), medium (96-171), and large (> 171). Shrinkage methods reduced inter-hospital variation (min-max) for mortality (observed: 0%-10%; adjusted: 1.5%-2.4%) and major morbidity or mortality (observed: 2.6%-35%; adjusted: 6.9%-17.5%). Shrinkage methods shrunk hospital rates toward the group mean. Direct standardization with hospital random effect, compared to fixed effect, resulted in 16.7%-38.9% of hospitals changing quintile mortality ranking. Indirect standardization with hospital random effect resulted in no performance outliers among small and medium hospitals for mortality, while logistic and fixed effect methods identified one small and three medium outlier hospitals. The choice of statistical method greatly impacts hospital ranking and performance outlier’ status. These findings should be considered when benchmarking hospital performance for hospital quality improvement activities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".