RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Hospital Standardised Length of Stay Ratio
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2025.06.26.25330250
DO 10.1101/2025.06.26.25330250
A1 Duke, Graeme J
A1 Hirth, Steven
A1 Santamaria, John D
A1 Li, Zhuoyang
A1 Read, Carla
A1 Hamilton, Adina
A1 Lapiz, Elsa
A1 Le, Teresa
A1 Fernando, Tharanga
A1 Merlo, Rosangela
YR 2025
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2025/07/15/2025.06.26.25330250.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at the Victorian Agency for Health Information, Department of Health Victoria https://vahi.freshdesk.com/support/home