Hospital Inpatient Mortality

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 317, Issue 26, 1987, Pages 1674-1680

  Dubois, Robert W ^a,b,c   Rogers, William H ^a,b,c   Moxley, John H ^d   Draper, David ^d   Brook, Robert H ^d  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b MetaMedical Inc ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; ECONOMIC ASPECT; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEART INFARCTION; HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT; MORTALITY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PNEUMONIA; REVIEW;

HOSPITALS; MEDICAL RECORDS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MORTALITY; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T; SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, P.H.S.; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0023472073     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198712243172626     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Flood AB, Scott WR, Ewy W. Does practice make perfect? Part I: the relation between hospital volume and outcomes for selected diagnostic categories. Med Care 1984; 22: 98–114.
2. Flood. Does practice make perfect? Part II: the relation between volume and outcomes and other hospital characteristics. Med Care 1984; 22: 115–25.
3. Maerki SC, Luft HS, Hunt SS. Selecting categories of patients for regionalization: implications of the relationship between volume and outcome. Med Care 1986; 24: 148–58.
4. Luft HS, Hunt SS. Evaluating individual hospital quality through outcome statistics. JAMA 1986; 255: 2780–4.
5. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven achéal. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 1979; 301: 1364–9.
6. Luft HS. The relation between surgical volume and mortality: an exploration of causal factors and alternative models. Med Care 1980; 18: 940–59.
7. Showstack JA, Rosenfeld KE, Garnick DW, Luft HS, Schaffarzick RW, Fowles J. Association of volume with outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: scheduled vs nonscheduled operations. JAMA 1987; 257: 785–9.
8. Wennberg JE, Roos N, Sola L, Schori A, Jaffe R. Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes: mortality and reoperation following prostatectomy. JAMA 1987; 257: 933–6.
9. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. An evaluation of outcome from intensive care in major medical centers. Ann Intem Med 1986; 104: 410–8.
10. Roemer MI, Moustafa AT, Hopkins CE. A proposed hospital quality index: hospital death rates adjusted for case severity. Health Serv Res 1968; 3: 96–118.
11. Duckett SJ, Kristofferson SM. An index of hospital performance. Med Care 1978; 16: 400–7.
12. Dubois RW, Brook RH, Rogers WH. Adjusted hospital death rates: apotential screen for quality of medical care. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 1162–6.
13. Harrell F. The LOGIST procedure. In: SUGI supplemental library user's guide. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, 1983.
14. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system for severely ill patients. Crit Care Med 1985; 13: 818–29.
15. Braunwald E. Heart disease: a textbook of cardiovascular medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1984.
16. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 1979; 7: 1–26.
17. Wallis WA. Compounding probabilities from independent significance tests. Econometrica 1942; 10: 229–48.
18. Brinkley J. U.S. releasing lists of hospitals with abnormal mortality rates. New York Times. March 12, 1986: 1.
19. Moses LE, Mosteller F. Institutional differences in postoperative death rates: commentary on some findings of the National Halothane Study. JAMA 1968; 203: 492–4.
20. Hulka BS, Romm FJ, Parkerson GR Jr, Russell IT, Clapp NE, Johnson FS. Peer review in ambulatory care: use of explicit criteria and implicit judgments. Med Care 1979; 17: Suppl 3: 1–73.
21. Kane RL, Rubinstein LZ, Brook RH, et al. Utilization review in nursing homes: making implicit level-of-care judgments explicit. Med Care 1981; 19: 3–13.
22. Brook RH, Appel FA. Quality-of-care assessment: choosing a method for peer review. N Engl J Med 1973; 288: 1323–9.