Display options
Share it on

Med Care. 2021 Dec 01;59(12):1090-1098. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001645.

Hospital-specific Template Matching for Benchmarking Performance in a Diverse Multihospital System.

Medical care

Brenda M Vincent, Daniel Molling, Gabriel J Escobar, Timothy P Hofer, Theodore J Iwashyna, Vincent X Liu, Amy K Rosen, Andrew M Ryan, Sarah Seelye, Wyndy L Wiitala, Hallie C Prescott

Affiliations

  1. VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
  2. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA.
  3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan.
  4. Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
  5. VA Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA.
  6. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

PMID: 34629424 DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001645

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hospital-specific template matching is a newer method of hospital performance measurement that may be fairer than regression-based benchmarking. However, it has been tested in only limited research settings.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of hospital-specific template matching assessments in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and determine power to detect greater-than-expected 30-day mortality.

RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort study with hospital-specific template matching assessment. For each VA hospital, the 30-day mortality of a representative subset of hospitalizations was compared with the pooled mortality from matched hospitalizations at a set of comparison VA hospitals treating sufficiently similar patients. The simulation was used to determine power to detect greater-than-expected mortality.

SUBJECTS: A total of 556,266 hospitalizations at 122 VA hospitals in 2017.

MEASURES: A number of comparison hospitals identified per hospital; 30-day mortality.

RESULTS: Each hospital had a median of 38 comparison hospitals (interquartile range: 33, 44) identified, and 116 (95.1%) had at least 20 comparison hospitals. In total, 8 hospitals (6.6%) had a significantly lower 30-day mortality than their benchmark, 5 hospitals (4.1%) had a significantly higher 30-day mortality, and the remaining 109 hospitals (89.3%) were similar to their benchmark. Power to detect a standardized mortality ratio of 2.0 ranged from 72.5% to 79.4% for a hospital with the fewest (6) versus most (64) comparison hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-specific template matching may be feasible for assessing hospital performance in the diverse VA health care system, but further refinements are needed to optimize the approach before operational use. Our findings are likely applicable to other large and diverse multihospital systems.

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shahian David M, Normand Sharon-Lise T. Comparison of “risk-adjusted” hospital outcomes. Circulation. 2008;117:1955–1963. - PubMed
  2. Paul E, Bailey M, Pilcher D. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for adult patients admitted to Australian and New Zealand intensive care units: development and validation of the Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death model. J Crit Care. 2013;28:935–941. - PubMed
  3. Iezzoni LI. The risks of risk adjustment. JAMA. 1997;278:1600–1607. - PubMed
  4. Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC). Online reports; 2017. - PubMed
  5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Outcome measures; 2017. Available at: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/OutcomeMeasures.html. Accessed December 6, 2018. - PubMed
  6. US Department of Veterans Affairs. Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) Value Model Measure. 2017. Available at: www.va.gov/QUALITYOFCARE/measure-up/SAIL_definitions.asp. Accessed May 10, 2017. - PubMed
  7. Orlowski JM. Overall hospital quality star rating on hospital compare public input request. 2019. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/system/files/c/1/496514-aamccommentsonfutureimprovementstohospitalstarratingsmethodology.pdf. - PubMed
  8. Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Ross RN, et al. A hospital-specific template for benchmarking its cost and quality. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:1475–1497. - PubMed
  9. Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Ross RN, et al. Template matching for auditing hospital cost and quality. Health Serv Res. 2014;49:1446–1474. - PubMed
  10. Vincent BM, Wiitala WL, Luginbill KA, et al. Template matching for benchmarking hospital performance in the veterans affairs healthcare system. Medicine. 2019;98:e15644. - PubMed
  11. Molling D, Vincent BM, Wiitala WL, et al. Developing a template matching algorithm for benchmarking hospital performance in a diverse, integrated healthcare system. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e20385. - PubMed
  12. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). “Beta Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-10-CM/PCS”; September 11. Available at: www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs10/ccs10.jsp. Accessed September 11, 2019. - PubMed
  13. Mahalanobis PC. On the generalised distance in statistics. Proc Natl Acad Sci India. 1936;2:49–55. - PubMed
  14. Render ML, Deddens J, Freyberg R, et al. Veterans Affairs intensive care unit risk adjustment model: validation, updating, recalibration. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:1031–1042. - PubMed
  15. Prescott HC. Variation in postsepsis readmission patterns: a cohort study of Veterans Affairs beneficiaries. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14:230–237. - PubMed
  16. Prescott HC, Kepreos KM, Wiitala WL, et al. Temporal changes in the influence of hospitals and regional healthcare networks on severe sepsis mortality. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1368–1374. - PubMed
  17. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT® 142 User’s Guide. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2016. - PubMed
  18. Khuri SF, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg. 1998;228:491–507. - PubMed
  19. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, et al. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1297–1310. - PubMed
  20. Harder VS, Stuart EA, Anthony JC. Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 2010;15:234–249. - PubMed
  21. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, et al. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Analy. 2007;15:199–236. - PubMed
  22. Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Pimentel SD, et al. Comparing resource use in medical admissions of children with complex chronic conditions. Med Care. 2019;57:615–624. - PubMed
  23. Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Ross RN, et al. Indirect standardization matching: assessing specific advantage and risk synergy. Health Serv Res. 2016;51:2330–2357. - PubMed
  24. Bradford MA, Lindenauer PK, Wiener RS, et al. Do-not-resuscitate status and observational comparative effectiveness research in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:2042–2047. - PubMed
  25. Baldwin MR, Narain WR, Wunsch H, et al. A prognostic model for 6-month mortality in elderly survivors of critical illness. Chest. 2013;143:910–919. - PubMed
  26. Walkey AJ, Weinberg J, Wiener RS, et al. Association of do-not-resuscitate orders and hospital mortality rate among patients with pneumonia. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:97–104. - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support