Key result
Agreement between different methods of ranking hospital quality of care (process measures vs 30-day mortality or readmission) was poor (weighted κ ≤ 0.15; Spearman correlation ≤ 0.21).
Observational (n=19,483)
Yes
Effect estimate: weighted κ ≤ 0.15
Agreement between different methods of ranking hospital-based quality of care for heart failure is poor, suggesting that profiling quality requires multidimensional ranking methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Single-metric hospital rankings for heart failure warrant caution; leaves open whether multidimensional methods better reflect quality.
Hernandez et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=19,483). Different methods of ranking hospital quality of care was evaluated on Agreement between different measures of quality of care (weighted κ ≤ 0.15). Agreement between different methods of ranking hospital quality of care (process measures vs 30-day mortality or readmission) was poor (weighted κ ≤ 0.15; Spearman correlation ≤ 0.21).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: