Optimal Statistical Decisions for Hospital Report Cards

Peter C. Austin and Geoffrey M. Anderson
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 1, 11-19

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.

Keywords: decision analysis; hospital report cards; provider profiling; quality of health care (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X04273142 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:1:p:11-19

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04273142

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().