The Library
The findings of the Mid-Staffordshire inquiry do not uphold the use of hospital standardized mortality ratios as a screening test for ‘bad’ hospitals
Tools
Tools
Tools
Mohammed, Mohammed A., Lilford, Richard, Rudge, G., Holder, Roger L. and Stevens, Andrew (2013) The findings of the Mid-Staffordshire inquiry do not uphold the use of hospital standardized mortality ratios as a screening test for ‘bad’ hospitals. QJM, 106 (9). pp. 849-854. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hct101
Research output not available from this repository, contact author.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hct101
Abstract
The Mid-Staffordshire Public Inquiry has published its findings. The initial investigations were triggered by an elevated hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR). This shows that the HSMR is being used as a screening test for substandard care; whereby hospitals that fail the test are scrutinized, whilst those that pass the test are not. But screening tests are often misunderstood and misused and so it is prudent to critically examine the HSMR before casting it in the role of a screening test for 'bad' hospitals. A screening test should be valid, have adequate performance characteristics and a clear post-test action plan. The HSMR is not a valid screening test (because the empirical relationship between clinically avoidable mortality and the HSMR is unknown). The HSMR has a poor performance profile (10 of 11 elevated HSMRs would be false alarms and 10 of 11 poorly performing hospitals would escape attention). Crucially, the aim of a post-test investigation into an elevated HSMR is unclear. The use of the HSMR as a screening test for clinically avoidable mortality and thereby substandard care, although well intentioned, is seriously flawed. The findings of the Mid-Staffordshire Public Inquiry have no bearing on this conclusion because a 'bad' hospital cannot uphold a bad screening test. Nonetheless, HSMRs continue to pose a grave public challenge to hospitals, whilst the unsatisfactory nature of the HSMR remains a largely unacknowledged and unchallenged private affair. This asymmetric relationship is inappropriate, unhelpful, costly and potentially harmful. The use of process measures remains a valid way to measure quality of care.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine | ||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Hospitals -- Administration | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | QJM | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Oxford University Press | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 1460-2725 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | 1 September 2013 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 106 | ||||||||
| Number: | 9 | ||||||||
| Number of Pages: | 6 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 849-854 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1093/qjmed/hct101 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
