Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30971244›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

An administrative model for benchmarking hospitals on their 30-day sepsis mortality.

Jennifer L Darby, Billie S Davis, Ian J Barbash, Jeremy M Kahn

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer L DarbyCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Billie S DavisCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Ian J BarbashCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jeremy M KahnCRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. jeremykahn@pitt.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9688-5576

Funding

Novel approaches to profiling hospitals on critical illness mortalityR01HL126694 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KAHN, JEREMY M · 2015 to 2017
$1.1M
Patient Oriented Research and Mentoring in Critical Care Implementation ScienceK24HL133444 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KAHN, JEREMY M · 2016 to 2018
$348k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS025455AHRQ HHS K08HS025455NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL133444NHLBI NIH HHS K24HL133444NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL126694NHLBI NIH HHS R01HL126694
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the increased attention to sepsis at the population level there is a need to assess hospital performance in the care of sepsis patients using widely-available administrative data. The goal of this study was to develop an administrative risk-adjustment model suitable for profiling hospitals on their 30-day mortality rates for patients with sepsis.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using hospital discharge data from general acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania in 2012 and 2013. We identified adult patients with sepsis as determined by validated diagnosis and procedure codes. We developed an administrative risk-adjustment model in 2012 data. We then validated this model in two ways: by examining the stability of performance assessments over time between 2012 and 2013, and by examining the stability of performance assessments in 2012 after the addition of laboratory variables measured on day one of hospital admission.

resultsIn 2012 there were 115,213 sepsis encounters in 152 hospitals. The overall unadjusted mortality rate was 18.5%. The final risk-adjustment model had good discrimination (C-statistic = 0.78) and calibration (slope and intercept of the calibration curve = 0.960 and 0.007, respectively). Based on this model, hospital-specific risk-standardized mortality rates ranged from 12.2 to 24.5%. Comparing performance assessments between years, correlation in risk-adjusted mortality rates was good (Pearson's correlation = 0.53) and only 19.7% of hospitals changed by more than one quintile in performance rankings. Comparing performance assessments after the addition of laboratory variables, correlation in risk-adjusted mortality rates was excellent (Pearson's correlation = 0.93) and only 2.6% of hospitals changed by more than one quintile in performance rankings.

conclusionsA novel claims-based risk-adjustment model demonstrated wide variation in risk-standardized 30-day sepsis mortality rates across hospitals. Individual hospitals' performance rankings were stable across years and after the addition of laboratory data. This model provides a robust way to rank hospitals on sepsis mortality while adjusting for patient risk.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdultAgedBenchmarkingCritical CareFemaleHospital MortalityHospitals, GeneralHumansMaleMiddle AgedPennsylvaniaRetrospective StudiesRisk AdjustmentSepsisCritical careIntensive careMechanical ventilationOutcomesPerformanceQualitySepsis

Identifiers

PMID30971244
PMCPMC6458755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.