IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0257003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can we trust the standardized mortality ratio? A formal analysis and evaluation based on axiomatic requirements

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Roessler
  • Jochen Schmitt
  • Olaf Schoffer

Abstract

Background: The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) is often used to assess and compare hospital performance. While it has been recognized that hospitals may differ in their SMRs due to differences in patient composition, there is a lack of rigorous analysis of this and other—largely unrecognized—properties of the SMR. Methods: This paper proposes five axiomatic requirements for adequate standardized mortality measures: strict monotonicity (monotone relation to actual mortality rates), case-mix insensitivity (independence of patient composition), scale insensitivity (independence of hospital size), equivalence principle (equal rating of hospitals with equal actual mortality rates in all patient groups), and dominance principle (better rating of unambiguously better performing hospitals). Given these axiomatic requirements, effects of variations in patient composition, hospital size, and actual and expected mortality rates on the SMR were examined using basic algebra and calculus. In this regard, we distinguished between standardization using expected mortality rates derived from a different dataset (external standardization) and standardization based on a dataset including the considered hospitals (internal standardization). The results were illustrated by hypothetical examples. Results: Under external standardization, the SMR fulfills the axiomatic requirements of strict monotonicity and scale insensitivity but violates the requirement of case-mix insensitivity, the equivalence principle, and the dominance principle. All axiomatic requirements not fulfilled under external standardization are also not fulfilled under internal standardization. In addition, the SMR under internal standardization is scale sensitive and violates the axiomatic requirement of strict monotonicity. Conclusions: The SMR fulfills only two (none) out of the five proposed axiomatic requirements under external (internal) standardization. Generally, the SMRs of hospitals are differently affected by variations in case mix and actual and expected mortality rates unless the hospitals are identical in these characteristics. These properties hamper valid assessment and comparison of hospital performance based on the SMR.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Roessler & Jochen Schmitt & Olaf Schoffer, 2021. "Can we trust the standardized mortality ratio? A formal analysis and evaluation based on axiomatic requirements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0257003
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257003
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0257003&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0257003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0257003. 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.

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