Incorporating harms into the weighting of the revised Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety for Selected Indicators Composite (Patient Safety Indicator 90).


Journal

Health services research
ISSN: 1475-6773
Titre abrégé: Health Serv Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0053006

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2022
Historique:
revised: 22 09 2021
received: 11 06 2020
accepted: 13 11 2021
pubmed: 4 12 2021
medline: 18 5 2022
entrez: 3 12 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To reweight the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety for Selected Indicators Composite (Patient Safety Indicator [PSI] 90) from weights based solely on the frequency of component PSIs to those that incorporate excess harm reflecting patients' preferences for outcome-related health states. National administrative and claims data involving hospitalizations in nonfederal, nonrehabilitation, acute care hospitals. We estimated the average excess aggregate harm associated with the occurrence of each component PSI using a cohort sample for each indicator based on denominator-eligible records. We used propensity scores to account for potential confounding in the risk models for each PSI and weighted observations to estimate the "average treatment effect in the treated" for those with the PSI event. We fit separate regression models for each harm outcome. Final PSI weights reflected both the disutilities and the frequencies of the harms. We estimated PSI frequencies from the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases with present on admission data and excess harms using 2012-2013 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Fee-for-Service data. Including harms in the weighting scheme changed individual component weights from the original frequency-based weighting. In the reweighted composite, PSIs 11 ("Postoperative Respiratory Failure"), 13 ("Postoperative Sepsis"), and 12 ("Perioperative Pulmonary Embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis") contributed the greatest harm, with weights of 29.7%, 21.1%, and 20.4%, respectively. Regarding reliability, the overall average hospital signal-to-noise ratio for the reweighted PSI 90 was 0.7015. Regarding discrimination, among hospitals with greater than median volume, 34% had significantly better PSI 90 performance, and 41% had significantly worse performance than benchmark rates (based on percentiles). Reformulation of PSI 90 with harm-based weights is feasible and results in satisfactory reliability and discrimination, with a more clinically meaningful distribution of component weights.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34859429
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13918
pmc: PMC9108039
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

654-667

Subventions

Organisme : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
ID : HHSAA290201200003I

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Health Research and Educational Trust.

Références

Health Serv Res. 2022 Jun;57(3):654-667
pubmed: 34859429
Psychol Methods. 2010 Sep;15(3):234-49
pubmed: 20822250
Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R186
pubmed: 20950442
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Jul;13(7):755-66
pubmed: 16723725
Med Care. 2000 Jun;38(6):583-637
pubmed: 10843310
J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(11):697-704
pubmed: 730825
Med Decis Making. 2002 Sep-Oct;22(5 Suppl):S45-57
pubmed: 12369231

Auteurs

Patricia A Zrelak (PA)

Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Kaiser Permanente, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Garth H Utter (GH)

Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Department of Surgery, Outcomes Research Group, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, California, USA.

Kathryn M McDonald (KM)

Stanford University Center for Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Johns Hopkins University Schools of Nursing and Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Robert L Houchens (RL)

Truven Analytics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Sheryl M Davies (SM)

Stanford University Center for Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.

Halcyon G Skinner (HG)

Truven Analytics, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Lehigh University College of Health, Bethlehem, PA, USA.

Pamela L Owens (PL)

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Patrick S Romano (PS)

Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, California, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Medical Center, Sacramento, California, USA.

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