Failure to rescue - Validation of an algorithm using administrative data

被引:35
作者
Horwitz, Leora I.
Cuny, Joanne F.
Cerese, Julie
Krumholz, Harlan M.
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Syst Consortium, Oak Brook, IL USA
[2] VA Connecticut Healthcare Syst, West Haven, CT USA
[3] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Robert Wood Johnson Clin Scholars Program, New Haven, CT USA
[4] Yale New Haven Med Ctr, Ctr Outcomes Res & Evaluat, New Haven, CT 06504 USA
[5] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Sect Cardiovasc Med, Dept Med, New Haven, CT USA
[6] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Sect Hlth Policy & Adm, Dept Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, New Haven, CT USA
关键词
administrative data; patient safety; quality measurement; hospital quality; mortality;
D O I
10.1097/01.mlr.0000250226.33094.d4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Failure to rescue (FTR), the rate of death in patients suffering 1 of 6 in-hospital complications, is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicator calculated from administrative data. Objective: We sought to assess the accuracy of the AHRQ FTR algorithm. Methods: We undertook a retrospective chart review of 60 denominator cases of FTR identified by the algorithm at each of 40 University HealthSystem Consortium institutions. The primary outcome was the overall accuracy of the algorithm compared with chart review. We also assessed accuracy by complication type, patient characteristics, institution, service assignment, and mortality. Results: Of 2354 cases, 1193 (50.7%) were accurately identified by the algorithm as having had at least one of the FTR-qualifying complications during hospitalization. Of the 3073 complications identified in these patients, 1497 (48.7%) were correctly flagged by the algorithm, 907 (29.5%) were present on admission, 419 (13.6%) were not confirmed by chart review, and 250 (8.1%) met a predefined complication-specific criterion for exclusion. The case accuracy rate varied significantly by institution (mean, 50.7%; range, 18.3-100%; P < 0.001), service assignment (surgical service, 62.9% vs. nonsurgical service, 42.9%; P < 0.001), and mortality (alive, 43.9% vs. dead, 67.5%; P < 0.001) but was not affected by patients' age, gender, race, or insurance status. Conclusions: As currently calculated from administrative data, the FTR algorithm misidentifies half of the cases on average, is least accurate for nonsurgical cases, and is widely variable across institutions. This indicator may be useful internally to flag possible cases of quality failure but has limitations for external institutional comparisons. Improvements in coding quality and consistency across institutions are needed.
引用
收藏
页码:283 / 287
页数:5
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [21] HOSPITAL AND PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH AFTER SURGERY - A STUDY OF ADVERSE OCCURRENCE AND FAILURE TO RESCUE
    SILBER, JH
    WILLIAMS, SV
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 1992, 30 (07) : 615 - 629
  • [22] Anesthesiologist direction and patient outcomes
    Silber, JH
    Kennedy, SK
    Even-Shoshan, O
    Chen, W
    Koziol, LF
    Showan, AM
    Longnecker, DE
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2000, 93 (01) : 152 - 163
  • [23] The relationship between choice of outcome measure and hospital rank in general surgical procedures: Implications for quality assessment
    Silber, JH
    Rosenbaum, PR
    Williams, SV
    Ross, RN
    Schwartz, JS
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE, 1997, 9 (03) : 193 - 200
  • [24] Anesthesiologist board certification and patient outcomes
    Silber, JH
    Kennedy, SK
    Even-Shoshan, O
    Chen, W
    Mosher, RE
    Showan, AM
    Longnecker, DE
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2002, 96 (05) : 1044 - 1052
  • [25] EVALUATION OF THE COMPLICATION RATE AS A MEASURE OF QUALITY OF CARE IN CORONARY-ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT-SURGERY
    SILBER, JH
    ROSENBAUM, PR
    SCHWARTZ, JS
    ROSS, RN
    WILLIAMS, SV
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (04): : 317 - 323
  • [26] Failure to rescue - Implications for evaluating quality of care during labor and birth
    Simpson, KR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERINATAL & NEONATAL NURSING, 2005, 19 (01) : 24 - 34