Do patient-reported outcomes offer a more sensitive method for comparing the outcomes of consultants than mortality? A multilevel analysis of routine data

BMJ Quality and Safety

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 195-202

  Varagunam, Mira ^a   Hutchings, Andrew ^a   Black, Nick ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQ 5D QUESTIONNAIRE; HERNIOPLASTY; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; MORTALITY; OXFORD HIP SCORE; OXFORD KNEE SCORE; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ENGLAND; HERNIORRHAPHY; HIP REPLACEMENT; HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT; KNEE REPLACEMENT; MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REPLACEMENT ARTHROPLASTY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; ENGLAND; HERNIORRHAPHY; HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION; HUMANS; MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 84922630793     PISSN: 20445415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003551     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. NHS Commissioning Board. Everyone counts: planning for patients 2013/14. 2012. http://www.commissioningboard.nhs. uk/files/2012/12/everyonecounts-planning.pdf (accessed 22 May 2014).
2. Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland. UK surgeons' results. http://www.scts.org/modules/surgeons/default.aspx (accessed May 2014).
3. Hannan EL. Measuring hospital outcomes: don't make perfect the enemy of good! J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:67-9.
4. Walker K, Neuburger J, Groene O, et al. Public reporting of surgeon outcomes: low numbers of procedures lead to false complacency. Lancet 2013;382:1674-7.
5. Hunt LP, Ben-Shlomo Y, Clark EM, et al. 90-day mortality after 409 096 total hip replacements for osteoarthritis, from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: a retrospective analysis. Lancet 2013;382:1097-104.
6. National Joint Registry. Surgeon and hospital profile. http://njrsurgeonhospitalprofile.org.uk
7. Guidance on the routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for the NHS in England. Department of Health 2009/10. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod-consum-dh/groups/dh-digitalassests/dh/en/documents/digitalassest/dh-092625.pdf (accessed 22 May 2014).
8. Neuburger J, Hutchings A, Van Der Meulen J, et al. Using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to compare the performance of providers: does the choice of measure matter? Med Care 2013;51:517-23.
9. Hildon Z, Allwood D, Black N. Patients' and clinicians' views of comparing the performance of health care providers: a qualitative study. Health Expect 2014. doi:10.1111/hex.12037
10. Department for Communities and Local Government. The English indices of deprivation. London: Communities and Local Government Publications, 2007.
11. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78-B: 185-90.
12. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80-B: 63-9.
13. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
14. Dolan P Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095-108.
15. Northgate Information Solutions. PROMs risk adjustment methodology guide for general surgery and orthopaedic procedures. September 2010. http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/07/proms-ris-adjmeth-sur-orth.pdf (accessed 25 Sep. 2014).
16. Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med 2005;24:1185-202.
17. Krell RW, Hozain A, Kao LS, et al. Reliability of risk-adjusted outcomes for profiling hospital surgical quality. JAMA Surg 2014;149:467-74.
18. StataCorp. 2009. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP
19. Leckie G, Charlton C. runmlwin-a program to run the MLwiN multilevel modelling software from within Stata. J Stat Software 2013;52:1-40.
20. Glance LG, Dick A, Osler TM, et al. Impact of changing the statistical methodology on hospital and surgeon ranking: the case of the New York State cardiac surgery report card. Med Care 2006;44:311-19.
21. Peter C, Alter DA, Tu JV. The use of fixed and random-effects models for classifying hospitals as mortality outlier: a Monte Carlo assessment. Med Decis Making 2003;23:526-39.
22. Black NA, Johnston A. Volume and outcome in hospital care: evidence, explanations and implications. Health Serv Manage Res 1990;3:108-14.
23. Chowdhury MM, Dagash H, Pierro A. A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome. Br J Surg 2007;94:145-61.
24. Nordin P, Van Der Linden W. Volume of procedures and risk of recurrence after repair of groin hernia: national register study. BMJ 2008;336:934-7.
25. Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Van Der Meulen J, et al. Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:66.
26. Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Gross Frie K, et al. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. BMC Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012;10:34.
27. Hutchings A, Gross Frie K, Neuburger J, et al. Late response to patient reported outcome questionnaires was associated with worse outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:218-25.
28. Grosse Frie K, Van Der Meulen J, Black N. Relationship between patients' reports of complications and symptoms, disability and quality of life after surgery. Brit J Surg 2012;99:1156-63.
29. Birkmeyer JD, Finks JF, O'Reilly A, et al. Surgical skill and complication rates after bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1434-42.