Abstract
In current methods of profile monitoring, standards of acceptability (cut-offs) are set either by consulting panels of experts, or by selecting an arbitrary point (e.g., the 75th percentile) on the profile (statistical distribution). However, experts have only vague ideas of what outcome rates ought to be, while profile statistics stem from samples for which unknown percentages of cases have received acceptable care. Poorly chosen standards could cause profile monitoring to be ineffective, inefficient, or unnecessarily disruptive. A new method proposes to set standards by using statistics for which the percentage of adequate care has been predetermined by examining the process of care. Plans to circumvent the pitfalls involved are described, as are two approaches to estimating the degree of process adequacy from routinely produced outcome rates.
Full text
PDFSelected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Cochrane A. L. The history of the measurement of ill health. Int J Epidemiol. 1972 Summer;1(2):89–92. doi: 10.1093/ije/1.2.89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goss M. E., Reed J. I. Evaluating the quality of hospital care through severity-adjusted death rates: some pitfalls. Med Care. 1974 Mar;12(3):202–213. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197403000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Roemer M. I., Moustafa A. T., Hopkins C. E. A proposed hospital quality index: hospital death rates adjusted for case severity. Health Serv Res. 1968 Summer;3(2):96–118. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schonfeld H. K. Standards for the audit and planning of medical care: a method for preparing audit standards for mixtures of patients. Med Care. 1970 Jul-Aug;8(4):287–298. doi: 10.1097/00005650-197008040-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]