Cargando…
Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers
BACKGROUND: When profiling multiple health care providers, adjustment for case-mix is essential to accurately classify the quality of providers. Unfortunately, misclassification of provider performance is not uncommon and can have grave implications. Propensity score (PS) methods have been proposed...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003201/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29902975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0510-1 |
_version_ | 1783332331038179328 |
---|---|
author | Brakenhoff, Timo B. Roes, Kit C. B. Moons, Karel G. M. Groenwold, Rolf H. H. |
author_facet | Brakenhoff, Timo B. Roes, Kit C. B. Moons, Karel G. M. Groenwold, Rolf H. H. |
author_sort | Brakenhoff, Timo B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: When profiling multiple health care providers, adjustment for case-mix is essential to accurately classify the quality of providers. Unfortunately, misclassification of provider performance is not uncommon and can have grave implications. Propensity score (PS) methods have been proposed as viable alternatives to conventional multivariable regression. The objective was to assess the outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers. METHODS: In a simulation study based on empirical data, the classification performance of logistic regression (fixed and random effects), PS adjustment, and three PS weighting methods was evaluated when varying parameters such as the number of providers, the average incidence of the outcome, and the percentage of outliers. Traditional classification accuracy measures were considered, including sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Fixed effects logistic regression consistently had the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value, yet a low specificity and positive predictive value. Of the random effects methods, PS adjustment and random effects logistic regression performed equally well or better than all the remaining PS methods for all classification accuracy measures across the studied scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Of the evaluated PS methods, only PS adjustment can be considered a viable alternative to random effects logistic regression when profiling multiple providers in different scenarios. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6003201 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60032012018-06-26 Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers Brakenhoff, Timo B. Roes, Kit C. B. Moons, Karel G. M. Groenwold, Rolf H. H. BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: When profiling multiple health care providers, adjustment for case-mix is essential to accurately classify the quality of providers. Unfortunately, misclassification of provider performance is not uncommon and can have grave implications. Propensity score (PS) methods have been proposed as viable alternatives to conventional multivariable regression. The objective was to assess the outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers. METHODS: In a simulation study based on empirical data, the classification performance of logistic regression (fixed and random effects), PS adjustment, and three PS weighting methods was evaluated when varying parameters such as the number of providers, the average incidence of the outcome, and the percentage of outliers. Traditional classification accuracy measures were considered, including sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Fixed effects logistic regression consistently had the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value, yet a low specificity and positive predictive value. Of the random effects methods, PS adjustment and random effects logistic regression performed equally well or better than all the remaining PS methods for all classification accuracy measures across the studied scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Of the evaluated PS methods, only PS adjustment can be considered a viable alternative to random effects logistic regression when profiling multiple providers in different scenarios. BioMed Central 2018-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6003201/ /pubmed/29902975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0510-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Brakenhoff, Timo B. Roes, Kit C. B. Moons, Karel G. M. Groenwold, Rolf H. H. Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
title | Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
title_full | Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
title_fullStr | Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
title_full_unstemmed | Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
title_short | Outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
title_sort | outlier classification performance of risk adjustment methods when profiling multiple providers |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6003201/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29902975 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0510-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brakenhofftimob outlierclassificationperformanceofriskadjustmentmethodswhenprofilingmultipleproviders AT roeskitcb outlierclassificationperformanceofriskadjustmentmethodswhenprofilingmultipleproviders AT moonskarelgm outlierclassificationperformanceofriskadjustmentmethodswhenprofilingmultipleproviders AT groenwoldrolfhh outlierclassificationperformanceofriskadjustmentmethodswhenprofilingmultipleproviders |