This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: chest.07-3061v1 133/6/1319    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Article Archive Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Kuzniewicz, M. W. Articles by Dudley, R. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kuzniewicz, M. W. Articles by Dudley, R. A.

Variation in ICU Risk-Adjusted Mortality^*

Impact of Methods of Assessment and Potential Confounders

^* From the Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Correspondence to: Michael W. Kuzniewicz, MD, MPH, Assistant Adjunct Professor, Neonatology, University of California, San Francisco, 533 Parnassus Ave, UC Hall U585-F, San Francisco, CA 94143-0748; e-mail: kuzniewiczm{at}peds.ucsf.edu

Abstract

Background: Federal and state agencies are considering ICU performance assessment and public reporting; however, an accurate method for measuring performance must be selected. In this study, we determine whether a substantial variation in ICU mortality performance still exists in modern ICUs, and compare the predictive accuracy, reliability, and data burden of existing ICU risk-adjustment models.

Methods: A retrospective chart review of 11,300 ICU patients from 35 California hospitals from 2001 to 2004 was performed. We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for each hospital using the mortality probability model III (MPM₀ III), the simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II, and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV risk-adjustment models. We compared discrimination, calibration, data reliability, and abstraction time for the models.

Results: Regardless of the model used, there was a large variation in SMRs among the ICUs studied. The discrimination and calibration were adequate for all risk-adjustment models. APACHE IV had the best discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.892) compared to MPM₀ III (AUC, 0.809), and SAPS II (AUC, 0.873; p < 0.001). The models differed substantially in data abstraction times, as follows: MPM₀III, 11.1 min (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7 to 13.4); SAPS II, 19.6 min (95% CI, 17.0 to 22.2); and APACHE IV, 37.3 min (95% CI, 28.0 to 46.6).

Conclusions: We found substantial variation in the ICU risk-adjusted mortality rates that persisted regardless of the risk-adjustment model. With unlimited resources, the APACHE IV model offers the best predictive accuracy. If constrained by cost and manual data collection, the MPM₀ III model offers a viable alternative without a substantial loss in accuracy.

Key Words: ICUs • outcome assessment (health care) • quality of health care • risk adjustment • severity of illness index