Advertisement

Statistical Issues in the Analysis and Interpretation of Outcomes for Congenital Cardiac Surgery

  • Sean M. O’BrienEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The analysis and reporting of patient outcomes plays a major role in congenital cardiac surgery quality improvement and accountability initiatives. Although outcomes analysis can lead to important insights, factors such as wide patient heterogeneity and small sample sizes make analysis and interpretation challenging. This chapter explores issues, methods, and general principles for comparing cardiac surgery outcomes across providers.

Keywords

Case-mix adjustment Stratification Standardization Confounding Provider performance evaluation 

References

  1. 1.
    Kuhlthau K, Ferris TG, Iezzoni LI. Risk adjustment for pediatric quality indicators. Pediatrics. 2004;​113(1 Pt 2):210–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Little RJ, Rubin DB. Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21(1):121–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zaslavsky AM. Statistical issues in reporting quality data: small samples and casemix variation. Int J Qual Health Care. 2001;13(6):481–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schoenbach VJ, Rosamond WD. Understanding the fundamentals of epidemiology. An evolving text. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina; 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobs JP, O’Brien SM, Pasquali SK, Jacobs ML, Lacour-Gayet FG, Tchervenkov CI, et al. Variation in outcomes for benchmark operations: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(6):2184–92.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hornik CP, He X, Jacobs JP, Li JS, Jaquiss RD, Jacobs ML, et al. Relative impact of surgeon and center volume on early mortality after the Norwood operation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93(6):1992–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peterson ED, DeLong ER, Masoudi FA, O’Brien SM, Peterson PN, Rumsfeld JS, et al. ACCF/AHA 2010 Position Statement on Composite Measures for Healthcare Performance Assessment American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop a Position Statement on Composite Measures). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(16):1755–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Brien SM, DeLong ER, Dokholyan RS, Edwards FH, Peterson ED. Exploring the behavior of hospital composite performance measures an example from coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2007;116(25):2969–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christiansen CL, Morris CN. Improving the statistical approach to health care provider profiling. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8_Part_2):764–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krumholz HM, Brindis RG, Brush JE, Cohen DJ, Epstein AJ, Furie K, et al. Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Writing Group: cosponsored by the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and the Stroke Council Endorsed by the American College of Cardi-ology Foundation. Circulation. 2006;113(3):456–62.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med. 2005;24(8):1185–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaynes ET. Confidence intervals vs Bayesian intervals. Foundations of probability theory, statistical inference, and statistical theories of science. W.L. Harper and C.A. Hooker (eds), D. Reidel, Dodrecht; 1976. p. 175–257.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Austin PC. A comparison of Bayesian methods for profiling hospital performance. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(2):163–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Normand S-LT, Glickman ME, Gatsonis CA. Statistical methods for profiling providers of medical care: issues and applications. J Am Stat Assoc. 1997;92(439):803–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Brien SM, Shahian DM, DeLong ER, Normand S-LT, Edwards FH, Ferraris VA, et al. Quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery: part 2—statistical considerations in composite measure scoring and provider rating. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83(4):S13–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Congdon P. Bayesian statistical modelling. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics and BioinformaticsDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations