This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Austin, P. C. Articles by Anderson, G. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Austin, P. C. Articles by Anderson, G. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Optimal Statistical Decisions for Hospital Report Cards

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Ontario and Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario

Geoffrey M. Anderson, MD, PhD

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario

Purpose. Hospital report cards provide information designed to help patients and providers to make decisions. The purpose of this study was to place the design of hospital report cards into a decision-theoretic framework. The authors’ objectives were 2-fold: 1st, to determine what the choice of significance level implies about the relative value of the different types of misclassifications that can arise. Second, to determine optimal significance levels for specific cost functions describing the relative costs associated with different types of misclassifications. Methods. Using a previously published theoretical model for hospital mortality, the authors computed false positive (i.e., falsely classified as providing poor-quality care) and false negative (falsely classified as providing good-quality care) rates. First, they determined the cost functions for false negatives and false positives that are implicitly associated with the use of significance levels of 0.05 and 0.01 for identifying hospitals with higher than average mortality. Second, they determined the levels of statistical significance that should be chosen to minimize predefined cost functions, thus minimizing costs associated with misclassifying hospitals. Results. The lower the statistical significance level required for identifying hospitals with higher than average mortality, the lower the implicit cost of false negatives compared to false positives. For a given significance level, the greater the number of patients treated at each hospital or the greater the proportion of truly poorly performing hospitals, the lower the value of the implicit cost incurred by a false negative compared to that for a false positive. For cost functions that put a high relative penalty on false negatives compared to false positives, the use of significance levels of 0.05 or 0.01 does not result in optimal decisions across expected number of patients treated at each hospital or proportions of truly poor-quality care. Conclusions. Hospital report cards that use significance levels of either 0.05 or 0.01 to identify hospitals that have statistically significantly higher than average mortality make implicit assumptions about cost functions, and the values of the optimal cost function vary across scenarios.

Key Words: decision analysis • hospital report cards • provider profiling • quality of health care

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 1, 11-19 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04273142


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. M. O'Brien, E. R. DeLong, and E. D. Peterson Impact of Case Volume on Hospital Performance Assessment Arch Intern Med, June 23, 2008; 168(12): 1277 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]