Skip to main content
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 1993 Feb;27(6):765–777.

The relationship between adjusted hospital mortality and the results of peer review.

A J Hartz 1, M S Gottlieb 1, E M Kuhn 1, A A Rimm 1
PMCID: PMC1069912  PMID: 8428812

Abstract

This study assessed the relationship between the Health Care Financing Administration adjusted mortality rate for a hospital and the errors in care found by the peer review process. The three data sets used were: (1) the 1987-1988 completed reviews from 38 peer review organizations (PROs) of 4,132 hospitals and 2,035,128 patients; (2) all 1987 hospital mortality rates for Medicare patients as adjusted by HCFA for patient mix; and (3) the 1986 American Hospital Association Survey. The PRO data were used to compute the percentage of cases reviewed from each hospital confirmed by a reviewing physician to have a quality problem. The average percentage of confirmed problems was 3.73 percent with state rates ranging from 0.03 percent to 38.5 percent. The average within-state correlation between the problem rate and the adjusted mortality rate for all PROs was .19 (p < .0001), but the correlations were much higher for relatively homogeneous groups of hospitals, .42 for public hospitals and .36 for hospitals in large metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). These results suggest that the HCFA adjusted hospital mortality rate and the PRO-confirmed problem rate are related methods to compare hospitals on the basis of quality of care. Both methods may compare quality better if used within a group of homogenous hospitals.

Full text

PDF
765

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Dippe S. E., Bell M. M., Wells M. A., Lyons W., Clester S. A peer review of a peer review organization. West J Med. 1989 Jul;151(1):93–96. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dubois R. W., Rogers W. H., Moxley J. H., 3rd, Draper D., Brook R. H. Hospital inpatient mortality. Is it a predictor of quality? N Engl J Med. 1987 Dec 24;317(26):1674–1680. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198712243172626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eastaugh S. R. Hospital quality scorecards, patient severity, and the emerging value shopper. Hosp Health Serv Adm. 1986 Nov-Dec;31(6):85–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hsia D. C., Krushat W. M., Fagan A. B., Tebbutt J. A., Kusserow R. P. Accuracy of diagnostic coding for Medicare patients under the prospective-payment system. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 11;318(6):352–355. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198802113180604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Krakauer H., Bailey R. C., Skellan K. J., Stewart J. D., Hartz A. J., Kuhn E. M., Rimm A. A. Evaluation of the HCFA model for the analysis of mortality following hospitalization. Health Serv Res. 1992 Aug;27(3):317–335. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lohr K. N. Outcome measurement: concepts and questions. Inquiry. 1988 Spring;25(1):37–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Park R. E., Brook R. H., Kosecoff J., Keesey J., Rubenstein L., Keeler E., Kahn K. L., Rogers W. H., Chassin M. R. Explaining variations in hospital death rates. Randomness, severity of illness, quality of care. JAMA. 1990 Jul 25;264(4):484–490. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES