RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1286095
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Risk adjustment – never enough or too much?
Risikoadjustierung: Was und wie viel ist sinnvoll?Korrespondenz
Prof. Jon Nicholl DSc
Dean, School of health and Related research
University
of Sheffield
Western Bank
Sheffield S10 2TN
England
Publikationsverlauf
Publikationsdatum:
06. September 2011 (online)
Comparisons of health outcomes between people, services, institutions, and populations are used to assess the relative quality of health care. However, these non-experimental comparisons may be confounded by differences in casemix factors associated with the outcome. Casemix adjustment is used to create a fair comparison – but does it? Simulation experiments suggest that casemix adjustment can make the bias worse in non-experimental studies. How is this possible? This talk will explore the problem that casemix variables may have a different effect in different populations – this is the constant risk fallacy. Examples of non-constant risk in hospital comparisons will be presented and possible solutions will be explored.
#Korrespondenz
Prof. Jon Nicholl DSc
Dean, School of health and Related research
University
of Sheffield
Western Bank
Sheffield S10 2TN
England
Korrespondenz
Prof. Jon Nicholl DSc
Dean, School of health and Related research
University
of Sheffield
Western Bank
Sheffield S10 2TN
England