American Heart Journal
Volume 148, Issue 6 , Pages 921-923 , December 2004

Peer group benchmarks are not appropriate for health care quality report cards

  • Patrick S. Romano, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • UC Davis School of Medicine and Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Sacramento, Calif, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Patrick S. Romano, MD, MPH, UC Davis School of Medicine and Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, 4150 V Street, PSSB Suite 2400, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.

References 

  1. Available at: http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HQAD/HIRC/hospital/Outcomes/CABG/index.htm and http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HQAD/HIRC/hospital/Outcomes/HeartAttacks/index.htm. Accessed May 10, 2004
  2. Adult cardiac surgery in New York State 1998–2000; Percutaneous coronary interventions (angioplasty) in New York State, 1999–2001 report; Pediatric congenital cardiac surgery in New York State 1997–1999. Available at: http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/heart/heart_disease.htm. Accessed May 10, 2004
  3. Cardiac surgery in 2000 in New Jersey: a consumer report. Available at: http://www.state.nj.us/health/hcsa/cabmenu.htm. Accessed May 10, 2004
  4. Pennsylvania's guide to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery 2002. Available at: http://www.phc4.org/reports/cabg/02/default.htm. Accessed May 10, 2004
  5. Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment (EFFECT). Available at: http://www.ccort.ca/EFFECT.asp. Accessed May 10, 2004
  6. Available at: http://www.healthgrades.com. Accessed May 10, 2004
  7. 2003 Solucient 100 top hospitals: cardiovascular benchmarks for success. Available at: http://www.100tophospitals.com/media/cardio03_facts.asp. Accessed May 10, 2004
  8. Mukamel DB, Dick A, Spector WD. Specification issues in measurement of quality of medical care using risk-adjusted outcomes. J Econ Soc Meas. 2000;26:267–281
  9. Normand SL, Glickman ME, Gatsonis CA. Statistical methods for profiling providers of medical care (issues and applications). J Am Stat Assoc. 1997;92:803–814
  10. Austin PC, Alter DA, Anderson GM, et al. The impact of the choice of benchmark on the conclusions of hospital report cards. Am Heart J 2004;148:1041–6
  11. Rosenthal GE, Harper DL, Quinn LM, et al.  Severity-adjusted mortality and length of stay in teaching and nonteaching hospitals (results of a regional study). JAMA. 1997;278:485–490
  12. Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Weissman NW, et al.  Relationship of hospital teaching status with quality of care and mortality for Medicare patients with acute MI. JAMA. 2000;284:1256–1262
  13. Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Oetgen WJ, et al.  The association between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1640–1648
  14. Tu JV, Austin PC, Chan BTB. Relationship between annual volume of patients treated by admitting physician and mortality after acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2001;285:3116–3122
  15. Jollis JG, DeLong ER, Peterson ED, et al.  Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1880–1887
  16. Rainwater JA, Romano PS, Antonius DM. The California Hospital Outcomes Project (how useful is California's report card for quality improvement?). Joint Comm J Qual Improve. 1998;24:31–39
  17. Luft HS, Romano PS, Remy LL, et al.  Annual report of the california hospital outcomes project. Volume one: study overview and results summary. Sacramento, Calif: Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development; 1993;
  18. Rathore SS, Epstein AJ, Volpp KG, et al.  Hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery volume and patient mortality, 1998–2000. Ann Surg. 2004;239:110–117
  19. Shahian DM, Normand SL. The volume-outcome relationship (from Luft to Leapfrog). Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:1048–1058

PII: S0002-8703(04)00406-5

doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2004.06.012

American Heart Journal
Volume 148, Issue 6 , Pages 921-923 , December 2004

Article Tools