IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v25y2005i1p11-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Statistical Decisions for Hospital Report Cards

Author

Listed:
  • Peter C. Austin

    (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Ontario and Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario)

  • Geoffrey M. Anderson

    (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Department of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario)

Abstract

Purpose. Hospital report cards provide information designed to help patients and providers to make decisions. The purpose of this study was to place the design of hospital report cards into a decision-theoretic framework. The authors’ objectives were 2-fold: 1st, to determine what the choice of significance level implies about the relative value of the different types of misclassifications that can arise. Second, to determine optimal significance levels for specific cost functions describing the relative costs associated with different types of misclassifications. Methods. Using a previously published theoretical model for hospital mortality, the authors computed false positive (i.e., falsely classified as providing poor-quality care) and false negative (falsely classified as providing good-quality care) rates. First, they determined the cost functions for false negatives and false positives that are implicitly associated with the use of significance levels of 0.05 and 0.01 for identifying hospitals with higher than average mortality. Second, they determined the levels of statistical significance that should be chosen to minimize predefined cost functions, thus minimizing costs associated with misclassifying hospitals. Results. The lower the statistical significance level required for identifying hospitals with higher than average mortality, the lower the implicit cost of false negatives compared to false positives. For a given significance level, the greater the number of patients treated at each hospital or the greater the proportion of truly poorly performing hospitals, the lower the value of the implicit cost incurred by a false negative compared to that for a false positive. For cost functions that put a high relative penalty on false negatives compared to false positives, the use of significance levels of 0.05 or 0.01 does not result in optimal decisions across expected number of patients treated at each hospital or proportions of truly poor-quality care. Conclusions. Hospital report cards that use significance levels of either 0.05 or 0.01 to identify hospitals that have statistically significantly higher than average mortality make implicit assumptions about cost functions, and the values of the optimal cost function vary across scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter C. Austin & Geoffrey M. Anderson, 2005. "Optimal Statistical Decisions for Hospital Report Cards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(1), pages 11-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:1:p:11-19
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04273142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04273142
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X04273142?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter C. Austin & Jack V. Tu, 2006. "Comparing clinical data with administrative data for producing acute myocardial infarction report cards," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 115-126, January.

    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:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:1:p:11-19. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.