ABSTRACT
Objective Hospital length of stay (LOS) is a key indicator of hospital efficiency and quality of care, but a reliable metric for benchmarking LOS remains problematic. This report describes the methodology to generate a standardised hospital LOS ratio (HSLR).
Design Retrospective observational analysis of LOS from an administrative dataset using a survival (time-to-event) analytic approach to generate average (aLOS) and risk-adjusted LOS (pLOS), and the HSLR (= [sum observed LOS]/[sum total pLOS]).
Setting 334 (public and private) hospitals in the state of Victoria, Australia, adult population 5.28 million.
Participants 2.73 million adult multi-day acute-care hospital separations and 15.53 million bed-days over five years, July 2019 - June 2024.
Main outcomes Hospital aLOS, pLOS, and HSLR at the provider level with model fit assessed for calibration (Cox-Snell residuals), classification (aLOS and HSLR results for each hospital-years compared to benchmark), variance (intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC]) and dispersion (value [ϕ] and random effect standard deviation [τ]) characteristics.
Results LOS was markedly right skewed and autocorrelated (p<0.001); population median 3.94 (interquartile range: 2.48-6.76); aLOS 5.68 ±4.98 days. LOS prediction model included six demographic covariates (age, sex, aged-care residency, emergent, admission source, unplanned transfer) and 12,145 separate principal diagnoses aggregated into nine ranked LOS risk-categories. 572 (61% of 940 hospital-year) aLOS values were outside ±3SD benchmark; whereas 936 (99.5%) HSLR values within ±3SD; 98% within ±2SD. Model dispersion (ϕ = 2.80; τ = 0.15) and ICC at provider level (0.025) were low.
Conclusions aLOS is a simple descriptor but poor comparator. Time-to-event survival analytic models furnish risk-adjusted pLOS and HSLR metrics which indicate that majority of LOS variation is due to patient-related, not hospital, factors.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Human Research and Ethics: The Eastern Health Human Research Ethics Committee (LR19/062) approved this study and patient consent was waived. This is noted in the Methods section of the manuscript. Clinical trial number not applicable.
Declaration: We declare that there are/were no competing interests.
Funding: We did not receive funding to undertake this study.
Author details: Update author ORCID ID
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at the Victorian Agency for Health Information, Department of Health Victoria
