The use of hospital mortality rates as a measure of quality has been gaining support over recent years.
On the surface, mortality rates appear to be a good measure – it is unambiguous whether a patient died or not, and death is not the desired outcome of medical treatment. However, the issue is not as clear-cut as it seems.
A recent paper in the American Journal of Medical Quality, by researchers from 3M and Yale University, assisted by the J. Graham Atkinson, DPhil, Executive Vice President for Research and Policy of the Foundation, raises important issues regarding the measurement and use of mortality rates and points out the importance of focusing on preventable deaths and appropriately risk adjusting.
It also shows that, as they are currently used, random statistical variations can dwarf meaningful differences in death rates.
Richard L Fuller, MS, John S Hughes, MD, Norbert I Goldfield, MD, Graham Atkinson, DPhil, Are We Confident of Across-Hospital Mortality Comparisons?, American Journal of Medical Quality, May 2018.
Featured news
Ted’s Take: Leaders and Leadership
We need more leaders; Government, businesses, consulting firms, fortune 500 companies, associations, you name it. The problem is there is a dearth of leaders, but few are truly able to take a leadership role.
Ted’s Take: Do we need AI guardrails?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is all the rage now. There are all numbers of folks developing AI technology and applications that range from simple to complex.
Ted’s Take: Does AI learn and incorporate our biases?
We hear tons of conversation around the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We also hear that the application of AI might be the solution to almost everything. While that’s both an overstatement and unrealistic, there are a lot of companies and folks working to make AI do just that — solve everything
Jayne Koskinas Ted Giovanis
Foundation for Health and Policy
PO Box 130
Highland, Maryland 20777
Media contact: 202.548.0133