Abstract
Background For evaluating the quality of care provided by hospitals, special interest lies in the identification of performance outliers. We study a setting where the decision to classify hospitals as performance outliers or non-outliers is based on the observed result of a single binary quality indicator.
Methods We propose to embed the classification of providers into a Bayesian decision theoretical framework which enables the derivation of optimal decision rules with respect to the expected decision consequences. We argue that these consequences depend upon for which pathway to quality improvement the profiling of hospitals takes place. We propose paradigmatic utility functions for the two pathways external reporting and change in care delivery and compare the resulting optimal decision rules with regard to their threshold values, sensitivity and specificity. We further apply them to the area of hip replacement surgeries by analyzing data from the mandatory German hospital profiling program. Based on five quality indicators, we re-evaluate the performance of 1,277 hospitals which treated over 180,000 patients for hip-replacement surgeries during 2017.
Results Based on the utilities we assigned to the classification decisions, the decision rule for change in care delivery classifies more high-volume providers as outliers compared to the decision rule for external reporting, with consequences for both sensitivity and specificity. The re-evaluation of the five quality indicators illustrates that classification decisions are highly dependent upon the underlying utilities.
Conclusion Analyzing the classification of hospitals as a decision theoretic problem and considering pathway-specific consequences of decisions can help to derive an appropriate decision rule. Contrasting decision rules with regard to their underlying assumptions about the utilities of classification consequences can be helpful to make implicit assumptions transparent and justifiable.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The data are collected and analyzed as part of the mandatory routine external quality assurance program in Germany based on paragraph 136ff SGB V. Thus, no ethical approval of the study was necessary.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are collected and analyzed as part of the mandatory routine external quality assurance program in Germany based on paragraph 136ff SGB V. The data are part of the public reporting occuring under the rules of paragraph 137 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 4 SGB V (Qualitaetsbericht der Krankenhaeuser; Qb-R) for the reporting year 2017. The quality reports of the hospitals are only used in part. A complete, unchanged representation of the quality reports of the hospitals is available at https://www.g-ba.de, where data usage can also be requested.
