Apples and oranges: Comparison of ACS-NSQIP observed outcomes with Premier's Quality Manager-predicted outcomes

American Journal of Medical Quality

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 474-479

  Lee, Louis C ^a   Reines, H David ^a   Sheridan, Michael J ^a   Farmer, Barbara E ^a   Martin, John ^b   Duan, Michael ^b  

^a INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b Premier Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

administrative database; comparison; NSQIP; outcomes

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; STATISTICS; SURGERY; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 80455128533     PISSN: 10628606     EISSN: 1555824X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1062860611401652     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Khuri SF,Henderson WG,Daley J, et al.Successful implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in the private sector: the Patient Safety in Surgery study.Ann Surg. 2008;248:329-336.
2. Pauly MV,Brailer DJ,Kroch G,Even-Shoshan O.Measuring hospital outcomes from a buyer's perspective.Am J Med Qual. 1996;11:112-122.
3. Hall BL,Hirbe M,Waterman B, et al.Comparison of mortality risk adjustment using a clinical data algorithm (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) and an administrative data algorithm (Solucient) at the case level within a single institution.J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:767-777.
4. Steinberg SM,Popa MR,Michalek JA,Bethel MJ,Ellison EC.Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement.Surgery. 2008;144:662-667.
5. Davenport DL,Holsapple CW,Conigliaro J.Assessing surgical quality using administrative and clinical data sets: a direct comparison of the University Health System Consortium clinical database and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set.Am J Med Qual. 2009;24:395-402.
6. Regenbogen SE,Ehrenfeld JM,Lipsitz SR,Greenberg CC,Hutter MM,Gawande AA.Utility of the surgical APGAR score: validation in 4119 patients.Arch Surg. 2009;144:30-37.
7. Harrell FE,Califf RM,Pryor DB,Lee KL,Rosati RA.Evaluating the yield of medical tests.JAMA. 1982;247:2543-2546.
8. Schneeweiss S,Seeger JD,Maclure M,Wang PS,Avorn J,Glynn RJ.Performance of comorbidity scores to control for confounding in epidemiologic studies using claims data.Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:854-864.
9. HermansenSW. Evaluating predictive models: computing and interpreting the c statistic. www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2008/143-2008.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2011.
10. Cohen ME,Dimick JB,Bilimoria KY,Ko CY,Richards K,Hall BL.Risk adjustment in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: a comparison of logistic versus hierarchical modeling.J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:687-693.
11. Atherly A,Fink AS,Campbell DC, et al.Evaluating alternative risk-adjustment strategies for surgery.Am J Surg. 2004;188:566-570.
12. Hanauer DA,Englesbe MJ,Cowan JA,Campbell DA.Informatics and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: automated processes could replace manual record review.J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:37-41.