IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1978687645-651_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the statistical validity of standards used in profile monitoring of health care

Author

Listed:
  • McAuliffe, W.E.

Abstract

In current methods of profile monitoring, standards of acceptability (cut-offs) are set either by consulting panels of experts, or by selecting an arbitrary point (e.g., the 75th percentile) on the profile (statistical distribution). However, experts have only vague ideas of what outcome rates ought to be, while profile statistics stem from samples for which unknown percentages of cases have received acceptable care. Poorly chosen standards could cause profile monitoring to be ineffective, inefficient, or unnecessarily disruptive. A new method is suggested to set standards by using statistics for which the percentage of adequate care has been predetermined by examining the process of care. Plans to circumvent the pitfalls involved are described, as are two approaches to estimating the degree of process adequacy from routinely produced outcome rates.

Suggested Citation

  • McAuliffe, W.E., 1978. "On the statistical validity of standards used in profile monitoring of health care," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 68(7), pages 645-651.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:7:645-651_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1978:68:7:645-651_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.