跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要涉及医疗绩效的层级二元回归,后验尾概率并非金融尾部风险,也未明确研究离散选择行为。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者

医疗服务提供者绩效画像的统计方法与应用

研究问题
如何在调整患者与医院特征后评估医疗机构的表现,并用后验概率表达某家医院出现较差死亡率表现的不确定性?
方法与思路
作者提出基于相关模型参数后验尾概率的绩效指标,以层级 logistic 回归和 MCMC 分析老年心肌梗死患者的三十日死亡率。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,所提指标用于比较九十六家医院,并与常规评价方法对照;不同标准产生不同评价,但有一家医院始终表现最差。
阅读关注点
阅读时应核对风险调整、标准化及较差表现阈值的定义,并检查先验、医院样本量和后验计算对机构评价结果的影响。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;死亡率倍数的排版存在歧义,需核对原 PDF。摘要不足以判断质量差异的因果来源或刊本变化。

原文摘要

Recent public debate on costs and effectiveness of health care in the United States has generated a growing emphasis on “profiling” of medical care providers. The process of profiling involves comparing resource use and quality of care among medical providers to a community or a normative standard. This is valuable for targeting quality improvement strategies. For example, hospital profiles may be used to determine whether institutions deviate in important ways in the process of care they deliver. In this article we propose a class of performance indices to profile providers. These indices are based on posterior tail probabilities of relevant model parameters that indicate the degree of poor performance by a provider. We apply our performance indices to profile hospitals on the basis of 30-day mortality rates for a cohort of elderly heart attack patients. The analysis used data from 96 acute care hospitals located in one state and accounted for patient and hospital characteristics using a hierarchical logistic regression model. We used Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to fit the model and to obtain performance indices of interest. In particular, we estimated the posterior probability that mortality at the ith hospital is 1–1/2 times the median mortality rate over all the hospitals in the state. We also calculated the posterior probability that the deviation in average risk-adjusted and “standardized” mortality at the ith hospital is “large.” We compare the results of evaluating hospitals based on our performance indices to those obtained using conventional measures. With 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates ranging from 12% to 14%, one-quarter of the hospitals had posterior probabilities that hospital-specific mortality was 1–1/2 times the median mortality rate greater than 15%. The posterior probability of a large difference between risk-adjusted and standardized mortality rates was less than 6% for three-quarters of the hospitals we examined. Although there were differences in the evaluation of each hospital by the various criteria, one hospital consistently emerged as having the worst performance by all criteria.

笔记与分组