Value-based healthcare in ischemic stroke care: case-mix adjustment models for clinical and patient-reported outcomes.
Case-mix
Ischemic stroke
Patient-reported outcome measure
Risk adjustment model
Value-based healthcare
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 12 2019
05 12 2019
Historique:
received:
31
05
2019
accepted:
08
11
2019
entrez:
7
12
2019
pubmed:
7
12
2019
medline:
6
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have been proposed for benchmarking health care quality across hospitals, which requires extensive case-mix adjustment. The current study's aim was to develop and compare case-mix models for mortality, a functional outcome, and a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in ischemic stroke care. Data from ischemic stroke patients, admitted to four stroke centers in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2016 with available outcome information (N = 1022), was analyzed. Case-mix adjustment models were developed for mortality, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores and EQ-5D index scores with respectively binary logistic, proportional odds and linear regression models with stepwise backward selection. Predictive ability of these models was determined with R-squared (R Age, NIHSS score on admission, and heart failure were the only common predictors across all three case-mix adjustment models. Specific predictors for the EQ-5D index score were sex (β = 0.041), socio-economic status (β = - 0.019) and nationality (β = - 0.074). R The set of case-mix adjustment variables for the EQ-5D at three months differed considerably from the set for clinical outcomes in stroke care. The case-mix adjustment variables that were specific to this PROM were sex, socio-economic status and nationality. These variables should be considered in future attempts to risk-adjust for PROMs during benchmarking of hospitals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have been proposed for benchmarking health care quality across hospitals, which requires extensive case-mix adjustment. The current study's aim was to develop and compare case-mix models for mortality, a functional outcome, and a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in ischemic stroke care.
METHODS
Data from ischemic stroke patients, admitted to four stroke centers in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2016 with available outcome information (N = 1022), was analyzed. Case-mix adjustment models were developed for mortality, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores and EQ-5D index scores with respectively binary logistic, proportional odds and linear regression models with stepwise backward selection. Predictive ability of these models was determined with R-squared (R
RESULTS
Age, NIHSS score on admission, and heart failure were the only common predictors across all three case-mix adjustment models. Specific predictors for the EQ-5D index score were sex (β = 0.041), socio-economic status (β = - 0.019) and nationality (β = - 0.074). R
CONCLUSIONS
The set of case-mix adjustment variables for the EQ-5D at three months differed considerably from the set for clinical outcomes in stroke care. The case-mix adjustment variables that were specific to this PROM were sex, socio-economic status and nationality. These variables should be considered in future attempts to risk-adjust for PROMs during benchmarking of hospitals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31805876
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0864-z
pii: 10.1186/s12874-019-0864-z
pmc: PMC6896707
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
229Références
Oncologist. 2010;15(6):618-26
pubmed: 20507891
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Mar 17;13:36
pubmed: 25889480
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jun;25(6):1585-96
pubmed: 26714699
Gynecol Oncol. 2005 May;97(2):310-7
pubmed: 15863123
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:606154
pubmed: 22666140
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005 Jul 9;149(28):1574-8
pubmed: 16038162
BMJ Qual Saf. 2011 Oct;20(10):869-74
pubmed: 21642443
Stroke. 2002 Sep;33(9):2243-6
pubmed: 12215594
Stroke. 2018 May;49(5):e174-e199
pubmed: 29669874
Neurol Sci. 2006 Jun;27 Suppl 3:S260-2
pubmed: 16752063
Stroke. 2014 Mar;45(3):918-44
pubmed: 24457296
Eur Stroke J. 2018 Dec;3(4):361-368
pubmed: 31236484
Popul Res Policy Rev. 2010 Aug;29(4):593-608
pubmed: 20694029
Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):203-20
pubmed: 15725977
Stroke. 2014 Nov;45(11):3374-80
pubmed: 25293667
Cerebrovasc Dis Extra. 2013 Jul 05;3(1):97-102
pubmed: 23898344
Soc Sci Med. 1994 Dec;39(11):1537-44
pubmed: 7817218
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009;27 Suppl 1:204-14
pubmed: 19342853
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012 Mar;21(3):311-8
pubmed: 22060256
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Feb 05;12:15
pubmed: 24499454
Scand J Caring Sci. 2018 Jun;32(2):502-514
pubmed: 28949412
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1480-501
pubmed: 24711559
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Aug;23(8):2385-90
pubmed: 26979306
Neurology. 2012 Jun 5;78(23):1860-7
pubmed: 22573626
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):343-52
pubmed: 27325326
Clin Rehabil. 2012 Sep;26(9):771-86
pubmed: 22257504
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
pubmed: 9366889