Author
Listed:
- Kyle B Enfield
- Katherine Schafer
- Mike Zlupko
- Vitaly Herasevich
- Wendy M Novicoff
- Ognjen Gajic
- Tracey R Hoke
- Jonathon D Truwit
Abstract
Background: Hospitals are increasingly compared based on clinical outcomes adjusted for severity of illness. Multiple methods exist to adjust for differences between patients. The challenge for consumers of this information, both the public and healthcare providers, is interpreting differences in risk adjustment models particularly when models differ in their use of administrative and physiologic data. We set to examine how administrative and physiologic models compare to each when applied to critically ill patients. Methods: We prospectively abstracted variables for a physiologic and administrative model of mortality from two intensive care units in the United States. Predicted mortality was compared through the Pearsons Product coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis. A subgroup of patients admitted directly from the emergency department was analyzed to remove potential confounding changes in condition prior to ICU admission. Results: We included 556 patients from two academic medical centers in this analysis. The administrative model and physiologic models predicted mortalities for the combined cohort were 15.3% (95% CI 13.7%, 16.8%) and 24.6% (95% CI 22.7%, 26.5%) (t-test p-value
Suggested Citation
Kyle B Enfield & Katherine Schafer & Mike Zlupko & Vitaly Herasevich & Wendy M Novicoff & Ognjen Gajic & Tracey R Hoke & Jonathon D Truwit, 2012.
"A Comparison of Administrative and Physiologic Predictive Models in Determining Risk Adjusted Mortality Rates in Critically Ill Patients,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-10, February.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0032286
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032286
Download full text from publisher
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:plo:pone00:0032286. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.