IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ube/dpvwib/dp1809.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Learning from failure in healthcare: Dynamic panel evidence of a physician shock effect

Author

Listed:
  • Raf Van Gestel, Tobias Mueller, Johan Bosmans

Abstract

Procedural failures of physicians or teams in interventional healthcare may positively or negatively predict subsequent patient outcomes. We identify this effect by applying (non-)linear dynamic panel methods to data from the Belgian Transcatheter Aorta Valve Implantation (TAVI) registry containing information on the first 860 TAVI procedures in Belgium. We find that a previous death of a patient positively and significantly predicts subsequent survival of the succeeding patient. We find that these learning from failure effects are not long-lived and that learning from failure is transmitted across adverse events.

Suggested Citation

  • Raf Van Gestel, Tobias Mueller, Johan Bosmans, 2018. "Learning from failure in healthcare: Dynamic panel evidence of a physician shock effect," Diskussionsschriften dp1809, Universitaet Bern, Departement Volkswirtschaft.
  • Handle: RePEc:ube:dpvwib:dp1809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.vwl.unibe.ch/wp-content/uploads/papers/dp/dp1809.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fernández-Val, Iván & Weidner, Martin, 2016. "Individual and time effects in nonlinear panel models with large N, T," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 291-312.
    2. Aakvik, Arild & Holmas, Tor Helge, 2006. "Access to primary health care and health outcomes: The relationships between GP characteristics and mortality rates," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1139-1153, November.
    3. Geert Dhaene & Koen Jochmans, 2015. "Split-panel Jackknife Estimation of Fixed-effect Models," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 991-1030.
    4. Mario Cruz-Gonzalez & Ivan Fernandez-Val & Martin Weidner, 2016. "probitfe and logitfe: Bias corrections for probit and logit models with two-way fixed effects," Papers 1610.07714, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    5. Bun, Maurice J.G. & Kiviet, Jan F., 2006. "The effects of dynamic feedbacks on LS and MM estimator accuracy in panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 132(2), pages 409-444, June.
    6. Sundmacher, Leonie & Busse, Reinhard, 2011. "The impact of physician supply on avoidable cancer deaths in Germany. A spatial analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 53-62.
    7. Maurice J. G. Bun & Frank Windmeijer, 2010. "The weak instrument problem of the system GMM estimator in dynamic panel data models," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 13(1), pages 95-126, February.
    8. Nickell, Stephen J, 1981. "Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1417-1426, November.
    9. Giovanni S. F. Bruno, 2005. "Estimation and inference in dynamic unbalanced panel-data models with a small number of individuals," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 5(4), pages 473-500, December.
    10. Victor Chernozhukov & Iván Fernández‐Val & Jinyong Hahn & Whitney Newey, 2013. "Average and Quantile Effects in Nonseparable Panel Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(2), pages 535-580, March.
    11. Hockenberry, Jason M. & Helmchen, Lorens A., 2014. "The nature of surgeon human capital depreciation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 70-80.
    12. Ramkumar Janakiraman & Shantanu Dutta & Catarina Sismeiro & Philip Stern, 2008. "Physicians' Persistence and Its Implications for Their Response to Promotion of Prescription Drugs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1080-1093, June.
    13. Corinna Hentschker & Roman Mennicken, 2015. "The Volume‐Outcome Relationship and Minimum Volume Standards – Empirical Evidence for Germany," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 644-658, June.
    14. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, June.
    15. Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2013. "Information and Quality When Motivation Is Intrinsic: Evidence from Surgeon Report Cards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2875-2910, December.
    16. Ignace De Vos & Gerdie Everaert & Ilse Ruyssen, 2015. "Bootstrap-based bias correction and inference for dynamic panels with fixed effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 15(4), pages 986-1018, December.
    17. repec:tsj:stataj:y:17:y:2017:i:3:p:517-545 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Or, Zeynep & Wang, Jia & Jamison, Dean, 2005. "International differences in the impact of doctors on health: a multilevel analysis of OECD countries," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 531-560, May.
    19. Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2013. "Information and Quality when Motivation is Intrinsic: Evidence from Surgeon Report Cards," NBER Working Papers 18804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Jinhu Li & Jeremiah Hurley & Philip DeCicca & Gioia Buckley, 2014. "Physician Response To Pay‐For‐Performance: Evidence From A Natural Experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 962-978, August.
    21. Toshiaki Iizuka & Yasutora Watanabe, 2016. "The Impact of Physician Supply on the Healthcare System: Evidence from Japan's New Residency Program," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(11), pages 1433-1447, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Physician behavior; Learning; Failure;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ube:dpvwib:dp1809. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Silvia Glusstein-Gerber). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/vwibech.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.