Performance of Comprehensive Risk Adjustment for the Prediction of In-Hospital Events Using Administrative Healthcare Data: The Queralt Indices.
Queralt’s indices
benchmarking
case-mix
comorbidity
discrimination
multimorbidity
risk
Journal
Risk management and healthcare policy
ISSN: 1179-1594
Titre abrégé: Risk Manag Healthc Policy
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566264
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
23
08
2019
accepted:
17
01
2020
entrez:
14
4
2020
pubmed:
14
4
2020
medline:
14
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate risk adjustment is crucial for healthcare management and benchmarking. We aimed to compare the performance of classic comorbidity functions (Charlson's and Elixhauser's), of the All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), and of the Queralt Indices, a family of novel, comprehensive comorbidity indices for the prediction of key clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients. We conducted an observational, retrospective cohort study using administrative healthcare data from 156,459 hospital discharges in Catalonia (Spain) during 2018. Study outcomes were in-hospital death, long hospital stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We evaluated the performance of the following indices: Charlson's and Elixhauser's functions, Queralt's Index for secondary hospital discharge diagnoses (Queralt DxS), the overall Queralt's Index, which includes pre-existing comorbidities, in-hospital complications, and principal discharge diagnosis (Queralt Dx), and the APR-DRG. Discriminative ability was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and measures of goodness of fit were also computed. Subgroup analyses were conducted by principal discharge diagnosis, by age, and type of admission. Queralt DxS provided relevant risk adjustment information in a larger number of patients compared to Charlson's and Elixhauser's functions, and outperformed both for the prediction of the 3 study outcomes. Queralt Dx also outperformed Charlson's and Elixhauser's indices, and yielded superior predictive ability and goodness of fit compared to APR-DRG (AUC for in-hospital death 0.95 for Queralt Dx, 0.77-0.93 for all other indices; for ICU stay 0.84 for Queralt Dx, 0.73-0.83 for all other indices). The performance of Queralt DxS was at least as good as that of the APR-DRG in most principal discharge diagnosis subgroups. Our findings suggest that risk adjustment should go beyond pre-existing comorbidities and include principal discharge diagnoses and in-hospital complications. Validation of comprehensive risk adjustment tools such as the Queralt indices in other settings is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Accurate risk adjustment is crucial for healthcare management and benchmarking.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to compare the performance of classic comorbidity functions (Charlson's and Elixhauser's), of the All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), and of the Queralt Indices, a family of novel, comprehensive comorbidity indices for the prediction of key clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
We conducted an observational, retrospective cohort study using administrative healthcare data from 156,459 hospital discharges in Catalonia (Spain) during 2018. Study outcomes were in-hospital death, long hospital stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We evaluated the performance of the following indices: Charlson's and Elixhauser's functions, Queralt's Index for secondary hospital discharge diagnoses (Queralt DxS), the overall Queralt's Index, which includes pre-existing comorbidities, in-hospital complications, and principal discharge diagnosis (Queralt Dx), and the APR-DRG. Discriminative ability was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and measures of goodness of fit were also computed. Subgroup analyses were conducted by principal discharge diagnosis, by age, and type of admission.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Queralt DxS provided relevant risk adjustment information in a larger number of patients compared to Charlson's and Elixhauser's functions, and outperformed both for the prediction of the 3 study outcomes. Queralt Dx also outperformed Charlson's and Elixhauser's indices, and yielded superior predictive ability and goodness of fit compared to APR-DRG (AUC for in-hospital death 0.95 for Queralt Dx, 0.77-0.93 for all other indices; for ICU stay 0.84 for Queralt Dx, 0.73-0.83 for all other indices). The performance of Queralt DxS was at least as good as that of the APR-DRG in most principal discharge diagnosis subgroups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that risk adjustment should go beyond pre-existing comorbidities and include principal discharge diagnoses and in-hospital complications. Validation of comprehensive risk adjustment tools such as the Queralt indices in other settings is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32280290
doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S228415
pii: 228415
pmc: PMC7125405
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
271-283Informations de copyright
© 2020 Monterde et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
David Monterde declares that he is the developer of a software tool that can be used to compute the Queralt Index in clinical, management and research settings. The tool is available online at no cost. Dr Josep Comin-Colet reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support from Vifor Pharma, grants, personal fees from Novartis, grants, personal fees, non-financial support from Orion Pharma, outside the submitted work. The authors declare that they have no other conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this manuscript.
Références
Med Care. 2009 Jun;47(6):626-33
pubmed: 19433995
J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Mar;56(3):221-9
pubmed: 12725876
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014 Sep-Oct;32(5 Suppl 85):S-131-4
pubmed: 25365102
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Oct 28;64(17):1765-74
pubmed: 25443696
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar 15;173(6):676-82
pubmed: 21330339
Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul 01;5:199-203
pubmed: 23861599
Clin Interv Aging. 2019 Feb 26;14:427-435
pubmed: 30880924
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 24;12(2):e0172745
pubmed: 28235067
Int J Epidemiol. 2000 Oct;29(5):891-8
pubmed: 11034974
Eur J Public Health. 2015 Feb;25 Suppl 1:15-20
pubmed: 25690125
Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun 02;9:311-320
pubmed: 28652813
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Med Care. 2015 Sep;53(9):e65-72
pubmed: 23703645
Intern Med J. 2019 Jan;49(1):126-129
pubmed: 30680901
BMJ. 2018 Sep 5;362:k3359
pubmed: 30185425
Am J Public Health. 1996 May;86(5):668-73
pubmed: 8629717
Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007 Dec;3(12):725-32
pubmed: 18037932
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2012 Jan;65(1):29-37
pubmed: 22036238
Am J Infect Control. 2018 Mar;46(3):322-327
pubmed: 29050905
Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):8-27
pubmed: 9431328
Cancer. 2011 May 1;117(9):1957-65
pubmed: 21509773
Epidemiology. 2010 Jan;21(1):128-38
pubmed: 20010215
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Med Care. 2012 Dec;50(12):1109-18
pubmed: 22929993