+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

30-Day Survival Probabilities as a Quality Indicator for Norwegian Hospitals: Data Management and Analysis



30-Day Survival Probabilities as a Quality Indicator for Norwegian Hospitals: Data Management and Analysis



Plos One 10(9): E0136547



The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) reports 30-day survival as a quality indicator for Norwegian hospitals. The indicators have been published annually since 2011 on the website of the Norwegian Directorate of Health (www.helsenorge.no), as part of the Norwegian Quality Indicator System authorized by the Ministry of Health. Openness regarding calculation of quality indicators is important, as it provides the opportunity to critically review and discuss the method. The purpose of this article is to describe the data collection, data pre-processing, and data analyses, as carried out by NOKC, for the calculation of 30-day risk-adjusted survival probability as a quality indicator. Three diagnosis-specific 30-day survival indicators (first time acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture) are estimated based on all-cause deaths, occurring in-hospital or out-of-hospital, within 30 days counting from the first day of hospitalization. Furthermore, a hospital-wide (i.e. overall) 30-day survival indicator is calculated. Patient administrative data from all Norwegian hospitals and information from the Norwegian Population Register are retrieved annually, and linked to datasets for previous years. The outcome (alive/death within 30 days) is attributed to every hospital by the fraction of time spent in each hospital. A logistic regression followed by a hierarchical Bayesian analysis is used for the estimation of risk-adjusted survival probabilities. A multiple testing procedure with a false discovery rate of 5% is used to identify hospitals, hospital trusts and regional health authorities with significantly higher/lower survival than the reference. In addition, estimated risk-adjusted survival probabilities are published per hospital, hospital trust and regional health authority. The variation in risk-adjusted survival probabilities across hospitals for AMI shows a decreasing trend over time: estimated survival probabilities for AMI in 2011 varied from 80.6% (in the hospital with lowest estimated survival) to 91.7% (in the hospital with highest estimated survival), whereas it ranged from 83.8% to 91.2% in 2013. Since 2011, several hospitals and hospital trusts have initiated quality improvement projects, and some of the hospitals have improved the survival over these years. Public reporting of survival/mortality indicators are increasingly being used as quality measures of health care systems. Openness regarding the methods used to calculate the indicators are important, as it provides the opportunity of critically reviewing and discussing the methods in the literature. In this way, the methods employed for establishing the indicators may be improved.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 057013562

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26352600


Related references

Concordance and robustness of quality indicator sets for hospitals: an analysis of routine data. Bmc Health Services Research 11: 106, 2011

Use of data from the SINTEF-NIS for quality assessment of treatment at Norwegian hospitals. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 115(19): 2435, 1995

Use of data from the SINTEF-NIS for evaluation of therapeutic quality at Norwegian hospitals. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 115(23): 2948, 1995

Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials. Lancet. Oncology 10(9): 865-871, 2009

Management of minor head injuries in Norwegian hospitals--can the quality be improved?. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 119(13): 1874-1876, 1999

The OutPatient Experiences Questionnaire (OPEQ): data quality, reliability, and validity in patients attending 52 Norwegian hospitals. Quality and Safety in Health Care 14(6): 433-437, 2005

Postoperative wound dehiscence after laparotomy: a useful healthcare quality indicator? A cohort study based on Norwegian hospital administrative data. Bmj Open 9(4): E026422, 2019

Combining natural background levels (NBLs) assessment with indicator kriging analysis to improve groundwater quality data interpretation and management. Science of the Total Environment 569-570: 569-584, 2018

Quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: A pooled analysis of individual patient data from canadian cancer trials group clinical trials. Cancer 124(16): 3409-3416, 2018

Management and control of public hospitals--the use of performance measures in Norwegian hospitals. A case-study. International Journal of Health Planning and Management 21(2): 133-149, 2006

Disentangling quality and safety indicator data: a longitudinal, comparative study of hand hygiene compliance and accreditation outcomes in 96 Australian hospitals. Bmj Open 4(9): E005284, 2015

Incidence of coercive measures as an indicator of quality in psychiatric hospitals. Problems of data recording and processing, preliminary results of a benchmarking study. Psychiatrische Praxis 34(1): 26-33, 2006

Survival probabilities with time-dependent treatment indicator: quantities and non-parametric estimators. Statistics in Medicine 35(7): 1032-1048, 2016

Can we rely on Norwegian surgery data? A quality control at central and local hospitals of the procedure codes used in the survey on organization of gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 115(20): 2555-2558, 1995

Surgical injuries registered in the Norwegian system for patient injuries. Possibilities of the use of the material for quality improvement in Norwegian hospitals. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening 117(23): 3359-3362, 1997