+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Evaluating parsimonious risk-adjustment models for comparing hospital outcomes with vascular surgery



Evaluating parsimonious risk-adjustment models for comparing hospital outcomes with vascular surgery



Journal of Vascular Surgery 52(2): 400-405



Most outcomes registries use a large number of variables to control for differences in patients. We sought to determine whether fewer variables could be used for risk adjustment without compromising hospital quality comparisons. We used prospective, clinical data from the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) for five commonly performed inpatient vascular procedures (N = 24,744). For each of the five operations, we compared the ability of two parsimonious models (an intermediate model, using the top five variables for each procedure and a limited model using the top 2 variables from each procedure) and the full model (up to 42 variables) to predict the risk of mortality and morbidity at the patient and hospital level. The parsimonious model was similar to the full model in all comparisons. For the five procedures, the intermediate, limited, and full models all had very similar discrimination at the patient-level (C indices of 0.87 vs 0.85 vs 0.87 for mortality and 0.77 vs 0.75 vs 0.77 for morbidity), and similar calibration, as assessed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. In evaluating hospital-level morbidity and mortality rates, the correlations between the parsimonious and full models were very high for both mortality (>0.97 across operations) and morbidity (>0.97 across operations). Hospital quality comparisons for vascular surgery can be adequately risk-adjusted using a small number of important variables. Reducing the number of variables collected will significantly decrease the burden of data collection for hospitals choosing to participate in the vascular module of the ACS-NSQIP.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053056586

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 20670776

DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.02.293


Related references

Relevance of the c-statistic when evaluating risk-adjustment models in surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 214(5): 822-830, 2012

Risk adjustment for comparing hospital quality with surgery: how many variables are needed?. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 210(4): 503-508, 2010

Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS): II. Parsimonious Risk Models for Postoperative Adverse Outcomes Addressing Need for Laboratory Variables and Surgeon Specialty-specific Models. Annals of Surgery 264(1): 10-22, 2016

Perioperative risk factors impact outcomes in emergency versus nonemergency surgery differently: Time to separate our national risk-adjustment models?. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 81(1): 122-130, 2016

Comparing alternative risk-adjustment models. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 28(3): 247-257, 2001

Comparing AMI mortality among hospitals in patients 65 years of age and older: evaluating methods of risk adjustment. Circulation 99(23): 2986-2992, 1999

Emergency Medical Services Outcomes Project III (EMSOP III): the role of risk adjustment in out-of-hospital outcomes research. Annals of Emergency Medicine 40(1): 79-88, 2002

How well does diagnosis-based risk-adjustment work for comparing ambulatory clinical outcomes?. Health Care Management Science 12(4): 420-433, 2009

Risk adjustment for comparing hospital primary cesarean delivery rates. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 178(1 Part 2): S127, 1998

Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcomes of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation. Patient Safety in Surgery 2(1): 31, 2008

The measure and mismeasure of hospital quality: appropriate risk-adjustment methods in comparing hospitals. Annals of Internal Medicine 122(2): 149-150, 1995

Evaluating alternative risk-adjustment strategies for surgery. American Journal of Surgery 188(5): 566-570, 2004

Using a state-of-the-art approach. Evaluating hospital quality means comparing patient outcomes by various methods. Business and Health 5(11): 20 22-3, 1988

Ensemble of trees approaches to risk adjustment for evaluating a hospital's performance. Health Care Management Science 18(1): 58-66, 2015

Evaluating risk adjustment by partitioning variation in hospital mortality rates. Statistics in Medicine 13(10): 1001-1013, 1994