IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/199282121631-1640_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing providers of coronary revascularization: A method for peer review organizations

Author

Listed:
  • Hartz, A.J.
  • Kuhn, E.M.
  • Kayser, K.L.
  • Pryor, D.P.
  • Green, R.
  • Rimm, A.A.

Abstract

Objectives. Current methods to evaluate quality of care are usually limited to reviews of individual cases or comparisons of hospital mortality rates. We present an alternative method that compares complication rates adjusted for patient characteristics. Methods. Detailed clinical data that were specifically designed for quality comparisons of providers of revascularization procedures were abstracted from the medical records of 1998 Medicare patients, in 16 hospitals, who had coronary artery bypass surgery and 2091 patients, in 16 hospitals, who had angioplasty. Providers were ranked on the basis of an unadjusted risk, a risk adjusted for detailed clinical information, and a risk adjusted only for patient comorbidities. Results. Complication rates differed significantly and substantially among the hospitals. Clinical adjustment changed the hospital rankings for the bypass surgery hospitals, but not for the angioplasty hospitals. Adjustment for comorbidities did not affect hospital rankings for either procedure. Conclusions. When sample sizes are limited, adverse outcome rates may be a more sensitive measure of quality of care than mortality rates. Rates that are unadjusted or adjusted only for comorbidities may be inadequate for evaluating some providers of bypass surgery.

Suggested Citation

  • Hartz, A.J. & Kuhn, E.M. & Kayser, K.L. & Pryor, D.P. & Green, R. & Rimm, A.A., 1992. "Assessing providers of coronary revascularization: A method for peer review organizations," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(12), pages 1631-1640.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:12:1631-1640_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1992:82:12:1631-1640_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.