• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在医疗服务机构评估中使用贝叶斯分层回归模型以识别高死亡率医院的最优贝叶斯规则。

Bayes rules for optimally using Bayesian hierarchical regression models in provider profiling to identify high-mortality hospitals.

作者信息

Austin Peter C

机构信息

Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario.

出版信息

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 May 12;8:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-30.

DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-8-30
PMID:18474094
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2415179/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is a growing trend towards the production of "hospital report-cards" in which hospitals with higher than acceptable mortality rates are identified. Several commentators have advocated for the use of Bayesian hierarchical models in provider profiling. Several researchers have shown that some degree of misclassification will result when hospital report cards are produced. The impact of misclassifying hospital performance can be quantified using different loss functions.

METHODS

We propose several families of loss functions for hospital report cards and then develop Bayes rules for these families of loss functions. The resultant Bayes rules minimize the expected loss arising from misclassifying hospital performance. We develop Bayes rules for generalized 1-0 loss functions, generalized absolute error loss functions, and for generalized squared error loss functions. We then illustrate the application of these decision rules on a sample of 19,757 patients hospitalized with an acute myocardial infarction at 163 hospitals.

RESULTS

We found that the number of hospitals classified as having higher than acceptable mortality is affected by the relative penalty assigned to false negatives compared to false positives. However, the choice of loss function family had a lesser impact upon which hospitals were identified as having higher than acceptable mortality.

CONCLUSION

The design of hospital report cards can be placed in a decision-theoretic framework. This allows researchers to minimize costs arising from the misclassification of hospitals. The choice of loss function can affect the classification of a small number of hospitals.

摘要

背景

制作“医院成绩单”的趋势日益增长,其中会识别出死亡率高于可接受水平的医院。一些评论家主张在医疗服务提供者概况分析中使用贝叶斯分层模型。一些研究人员表明,在制作医院成绩单时会出现一定程度的错误分类。可以使用不同的损失函数来量化医院绩效错误分类的影响。

方法

我们为医院成绩单提出了几类损失函数,然后为这些损失函数族制定贝叶斯规则。由此产生的贝叶斯规则将医院绩效错误分类所产生的预期损失降至最低。我们为广义0-1损失函数、广义绝对误差损失函数和广义平方误差损失函数制定贝叶斯规则。然后,我们在163家医院的19757例急性心肌梗死住院患者样本中说明了这些决策规则的应用。

结果

我们发现,与假阳性相比,被归类为死亡率高于可接受水平的医院数量受分配给假阴性的相对惩罚的影响。然而,损失函数族的选择对哪些医院被识别为死亡率高于可接受水平的影响较小。

结论

医院成绩单的设计可以置于决策理论框架中。这使研究人员能够将医院错误分类产生的成本降至最低。损失函数的选择可能会影响少数医院的分类。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7598/2415179/c96f42e4e74a/1471-2288-8-30-2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7598/2415179/16612cbd6349/1471-2288-8-30-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7598/2415179/c96f42e4e74a/1471-2288-8-30-2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7598/2415179/16612cbd6349/1471-2288-8-30-1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7598/2415179/c96f42e4e74a/1471-2288-8-30-2.jpg

相似文献

1
Bayes rules for optimally using Bayesian hierarchical regression models in provider profiling to identify high-mortality hospitals.在医疗服务机构评估中使用贝叶斯分层回归模型以识别高死亡率医院的最优贝叶斯规则。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 May 12;8:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-30.
2
Optimal statistical decisions for hospital report cards.
Med Decis Making. 2005 Jan-Feb;25(1):11-9. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04273142.
3
A comparison of Bayesian methods for profiling hospital performance.用于分析医院绩效的贝叶斯方法比较。
Med Decis Making. 2002 Mar-Apr;22(2):163-72. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0202200213.
4
Statistical profiling of hospital performance using acute coronary syndrome mortality.利用急性冠状动脉综合征死亡率对医院绩效进行统计分析。
Cardiovasc J Afr. 2012 Nov;23(10):546-51. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2011-064.
5
Improving the statistical approach to health care provider profiling.改进医疗服务提供者概况分析的统计方法。
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Oct 15;127(8 Pt 2):764-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-8_part_2-199710151-00065.
6
Hospital size, uncertainty, and pay-for-performance.医院规模、不确定性与绩效薪酬。
Health Care Financ Rev. 2007 Fall;29(1):45-57.
7
The use of fixed- and random-effects models for classifying hospitals as mortality outliers: a Monte Carlo assessment.使用固定效应模型和随机效应模型将医院分类为死亡率异常值:蒙特卡洛评估
Med Decis Making. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6):526-39. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03258443.
8
Comparing a multivariate response Bayesian random effects logistic regression model with a latent variable item response theory model for provider profiling on multiple binary indicators simultaneously.同时对多个二分类指标进行提供者分析时,比较多元响应贝叶斯随机效应逻辑回归模型与潜在变量项目反应理论模型。
Stat Med. 2020 Apr 30;39(9):1390-1406. doi: 10.1002/sim.8484. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
9
Hospital profiling using Bayesian decision theory.利用贝叶斯决策理论进行医院分析。
Biometrics. 2023 Sep;79(3):2757-2769. doi: 10.1111/biom.13798. Epub 2022 Dec 27.
10
Grading the graders: how hospitals in California and New York perceive and interpret their report cards.对评分者进行评分:加利福尼亚州和纽约州的医院如何看待和解读他们的成绩单。
Med Care. 1999 Mar;37(3):295-305. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199903000-00009.

引用本文的文献

1
The failure of four bootstrap procedures for estimating confidence intervals for predicted-to-expected ratios for hospital profiling.四种自举程序估计医院分析中预测与预期比值置信区间的失败。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Oct 14;22(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01739-x.
2
Healthcare provider profiling: fixing observation period or fixing sample size?医疗服务提供者概况分析:确定观察期还是确定样本量?
BMJ Open Qual. 2022 Apr;11(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001588.
3
Multiple imputation procedures for estimating causal effects with multiple treatments with application to the comparison of healthcare providers.

本文引用的文献

1
The effect of provider-level ascertainment bias on profiling nursing homes by J. Roy and V. Mor, Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24(23):3609-3629.
Stat Med. 2006 Jun 15;25(11):1976-7; author reply 1977-8. doi: 10.1002/sim.2480.
2
Optimal statistical decisions for hospital report cards.
Med Decis Making. 2005 Jan-Feb;25(1):11-9. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04273142.
3
The use of fixed- and random-effects models for classifying hospitals as mortality outliers: a Monte Carlo assessment.使用固定效应模型和随机效应模型将医院分类为死亡率异常值:蒙特卡洛评估
Med Decis Making. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6):526-39. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03258443.
4
多重插补程序用于估计多处理下的因果效应,并应用于医疗保健提供者的比较。
Stat Med. 2022 Jan 15;41(1):208-226. doi: 10.1002/sim.9231. Epub 2021 Nov 2.
4
Examining Hospital Variation on Multiple Indicators of Stroke Quality of Care.考察多家医院多项卒中护理质量指标的差异。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Dec;13(12):e006968. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.006968. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
5
Comparing a multivariate response Bayesian random effects logistic regression model with a latent variable item response theory model for provider profiling on multiple binary indicators simultaneously.同时对多个二分类指标进行提供者分析时,比较多元响应贝叶斯随机效应逻辑回归模型与潜在变量项目反应理论模型。
Stat Med. 2020 Apr 30;39(9):1390-1406. doi: 10.1002/sim.8484. Epub 2020 Feb 11.
6
The problem with composite indicators.综合指标的问题。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Apr;28(4):338-344. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-007798. Epub 2018 Aug 12.
7
Classification accuracy of claims-based methods for identifying providers failing to meet performance targets.基于索赔的方法在识别未达绩效目标的供应商方面的分类准确性。
Stat Med. 2015 Jan 15;34(1):93-105. doi: 10.1002/sim.6318. Epub 2014 Oct 10.
8
Ensemble of trees approaches to risk adjustment for evaluating a hospital's performance.用于评估医院绩效的风险调整的树集成方法。
Health Care Manag Sci. 2015 Mar;18(1):58-66. doi: 10.1007/s10729-014-9272-4. Epub 2014 Apr 29.
9
On the accuracy of classifying hospitals on their performance measures.论医院绩效指标分类的准确性。
Stat Med. 2014 Mar 30;33(7):1081-103. doi: 10.1002/sim.6012. Epub 2013 Oct 13.
10
Assessing the accuracy of profiling methods for identifying top providers: performance of mental health care providers.评估用于识别顶级医疗服务提供者的分析方法的准确性:心理健康护理提供者的表现。
Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 1;13(1):1-17. doi: 10.1007/s10742-012-0099-5. Epub 2012 Sep 18.
Introduction and overview of the conceptual framework for a national quality measurement and reporting system.
Med Care. 2003 Jan;41(1 Suppl):I1-7. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200301001-00001.
5
A comparison of Bayesian methods for profiling hospital performance.用于分析医院绩效的贝叶斯方法比较。
Med Decis Making. 2002 Mar-Apr;22(2):163-72. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0202200213.
6
Relationship between annual volume of patients treated by admitting physician and mortality after acute myocardial infarction.急性心肌梗死后,住院医师治疗的患者年治疗量与死亡率之间的关系。
JAMA. 2001 Jun 27;285(24):3116-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.24.3116.
7
Long-term MI outcomes at hospitals with or without on-site revascularization.有或没有现场血运重建的医院的长期心肌梗死治疗结果。
JAMA. 2001 Apr 25;285(16):2101-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2101.
8
Development and validation of the Ontario acute myocardial infarction mortality prediction rules.安大略省急性心肌梗死死亡率预测规则的制定与验证
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Mar 15;37(4):992-7. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01109-3.
9
Medical profiling: improving standards and risk adjustments using hierarchical models.医学概况分析:使用层次模型提高标准和风险调整
J Health Econ. 2000 May;19(3):291-309. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(99)00034-x.
10
Temporal changes in the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in Ontario, 1992-1996.1992 - 1996年安大略省急性心肌梗死治疗结果的时间变化
CMAJ. 1999 Nov 16;161(10):1257-61.