Comparing Precision Machine Learning With Consumer, Quality, and Volume Metrics for Ranking Orthopedic Surgery Hospitals: Retrospective Study.


Journal

Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 12 2020
Historique:
received: 22 07 2020
accepted: 14 10 2020
revised: 19 08 2020
entrez: 1 12 2020
pubmed: 2 12 2020
medline: 16 3 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Patients' choices of providers when undergoing elective surgeries significantly impact both perioperative outcomes and costs. There exist a variety of approaches that are available to patients for evaluating between different hospital choices. This paper aims to compare differences in outcomes and costs between hospitals ranked using popular internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average volumes, average outcomes, and precision machine learning-based rankings for hospital settings performing hip replacements in a large metropolitan area. Retrospective data from 4192 hip replacement surgeries among Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 in a the Chicago metropolitan area were analyzed for variations in outcomes (90-day postprocedure hospitalizations and emergency department visits) and costs (90-day total cost of care) between hospitals ranked through multiple approaches: internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average yearly surgical volume, average outcome rates, and machine learning-based rankings. The average rates of outcomes and costs were compared between the patients who underwent surgery at a hospital using each ranking approach in unadjusted and propensity-based adjusted comparisons. Only a minority of patients (1159/4192, 27.6% to 2078/4192, 49.6%) were found to be matched to higher-ranked hospitals for each of the different approaches. Of the approaches considered, hip replacements at hospitals that were more highly ranked by consumer ratings, quality stars, and machine learning were all consistently associated with improvements in outcomes and costs in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses. The improvement was greatest across all metrics and analyses for machine learning-based rankings. There may be a substantive opportunity to increase the number of patients matched to appropriate hospitals across a broad variety of ranking approaches. Elective hip replacement surgeries performed at hospitals where patients were matched based on patient-specific machine learning were associated with better outcomes and lower total costs of care.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Patients' choices of providers when undergoing elective surgeries significantly impact both perioperative outcomes and costs. There exist a variety of approaches that are available to patients for evaluating between different hospital choices.
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to compare differences in outcomes and costs between hospitals ranked using popular internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average volumes, average outcomes, and precision machine learning-based rankings for hospital settings performing hip replacements in a large metropolitan area.
METHODS
Retrospective data from 4192 hip replacement surgeries among Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 in a the Chicago metropolitan area were analyzed for variations in outcomes (90-day postprocedure hospitalizations and emergency department visits) and costs (90-day total cost of care) between hospitals ranked through multiple approaches: internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average yearly surgical volume, average outcome rates, and machine learning-based rankings. The average rates of outcomes and costs were compared between the patients who underwent surgery at a hospital using each ranking approach in unadjusted and propensity-based adjusted comparisons.
RESULTS
Only a minority of patients (1159/4192, 27.6% to 2078/4192, 49.6%) were found to be matched to higher-ranked hospitals for each of the different approaches. Of the approaches considered, hip replacements at hospitals that were more highly ranked by consumer ratings, quality stars, and machine learning were all consistently associated with improvements in outcomes and costs in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses. The improvement was greatest across all metrics and analyses for machine learning-based rankings.
CONCLUSIONS
There may be a substantive opportunity to increase the number of patients matched to appropriate hospitals across a broad variety of ranking approaches. Elective hip replacement surgeries performed at hospitals where patients were matched based on patient-specific machine learning were associated with better outcomes and lower total costs of care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33258459
pii: v22i12e22765
doi: 10.2196/22765
pmc: PMC7738251
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e22765

Informations de copyright

©Dev Goyal, John Guttag, Zeeshan Syed, Rudra Mehta, Zahoor Elahi, Mohammed Saeed. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 01.12.2020.

Références

J Hosp Med. 2019 May;14(5):266-271
pubmed: 30794141
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jun 2;364(22):2128-37
pubmed: 21631325
JAMA. 2015 May 19;313(19):1903-4
pubmed: 25988456
HSS J. 2018 Jul;14(2):177-180
pubmed: 29983660
Cureus. 2018 Feb 6;10(2):e2165
pubmed: 29644154
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Feb;175(2):291-3
pubmed: 25437252
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Mar;34(3):423-30
pubmed: 25732492
J Knee Surg. 2019 Aug 28;:
pubmed: 31461755
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Apr 20;152(8):521-5
pubmed: 20404383
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Nov;30(11):2107-15
pubmed: 22068403
JAMA. 2016 Nov 1;316(17):1761-1762
pubmed: 27802552
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Aug 22;19(8):e254
pubmed: 28830852
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 19;376(3):197-199
pubmed: 28099823
Am J Med Qual. 2017 Nov/Dec;32(6):632-637
pubmed: 28693335
Foot Ankle Spec. 2020 Feb;13(1):43-49
pubmed: 30795702
HSS J. 2016 Oct;12(3):272-277
pubmed: 27703422
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Apr;35(4):697-705
pubmed: 27044971
Stat Med. 2014 Mar 15;33(6):1057-69
pubmed: 24123228
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Jan;210(1):87-92
pubmed: 20123337
JAMA. 2016 Jun 7;315(21):2265-6
pubmed: 27272569
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Apr 1;25(4):401-407
pubmed: 29025145
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 May;32(5):231-237
pubmed: 29401098
Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Apr;87(4):341-8
pubmed: 22469347
Am J Manag Care. 2020 Oct;26(10):445-448
pubmed: 33094940
Surgery. 2005 Nov;138(5):837-43
pubmed: 16291383
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 Nov;9(6):788-791
pubmed: 27803091
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2013 Sep;98(9):34-9
pubmed: 24455818
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 29;12(6):e0179603
pubmed: 28662045
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Apr 16;96(8):640-7
pubmed: 24740660
Am J Surg. 2016 Jan;211(1):59-63
pubmed: 26542187
Bull Am Coll Surg. 2013 Nov;98(11):20-1
pubmed: 24313135
Am J Surg. 2017 Jan;213(1):1-9
pubmed: 27392753

Auteurs

Dev Goyal (D)

Health at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.

John Guttag (J)

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Zeeshan Syed (Z)

Health at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.

Rudra Mehta (R)

Health at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.

Zahoor Elahi (Z)

Health at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.

Mohammed Saeed (M)

Health at Scale Corporation, San Jose, CA, United States.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH