• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cardiovascular System  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Sean M. O’Brien, PhD; Elizabeth R. DeLong, PhD; Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1277-1284.

Background  Process performance measures are increasingly used to assess and reward hospital quality. The impact of small hospital case volumes on such measures is not clear.

Methods  Using data from the Hospital Quality Alliance, we examined hospital performance for 8 publicly reported process measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 3761 US hospitals during the reporting period of January to December 2005. For each performance measure, we examined the association between hospital case volume, process performance, and designation as a "top hospital" (performance at or above the 90% percentile score).

Results  Sample sizes available for process performance assessment varied considerably, ranging from a median of 3 patients per hospital for timely administration of thrombolytics therapy to 62 patients for aspirin given on arrival at the hospital. In aggregate, hospitals with larger AMI case volumes had better process performance; for example, use of β-blockers at arrival rose from 72% of patients at hospitals with less than 10 AMI cases to 80% of patients at hospitals with more than 100 cases (P < .001 for volume trend). In contrast, owing to an artifact of wide sampling variation in sites with small denominators, classification of a center as a top hospital actually declined rapidly with increasing case volume using current analytic methods (P < .001). This unexpected association persisted after excluding very low volume centers (<25 cases) and when using Achievable Benchmarks of Care. Using hierarchical models removed the paradoxical association but may have introduced a bias in the opposite direction.

Conclusions  Large-volume hospitals had better aggregate performance but were less likely to be identified as top hospitals. Methods that account for small and unequal denominators are needed when assessing hospital process measure performance.

Author Affiliations: Duke Clinical Research Institute (Drs O’Brien, DeLong, and Peterson), Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformation (Drs O’Brien and DeLong), and Division of Cardiology (Dr Peterson), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Evaluating Quality in Small-Volume Hospitals
Elizabeth E. Drye and Jersey Chen
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1249-1251.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Estimating and Reporting on the Quality of Inpatient Stroke Care by Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers
Arling et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:44-51.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating Quality in Small-Volume Hospitals
Drye and Chen
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1249-1251.
FULL TEXT