Different Approaches for Case-Mix Adjustment of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Compare Healthcare Providers—Methodological Results of a Systematic Review

Abstract

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used to compare the quality of outcomes between different healthcare providers (medical practices, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities). However, such comparisons can only be fair if differences in the case-mix between different types of provider are taken into account. This can be achieved with adequate statistical case-mix adjustment (CMA). To date, there is a lack of overview studies on current CMA methods for PROs. The aim of this study was to investigate which approaches are currently used to report and examine PROs for case-mix-adjusted comparison between providers. A systematic MEDLINE literature search was conducted (February 2021). The results were examined by two reviewers. Articles were included if they compared (a) different healthcare providers using (b) case-mix-adjusted (c) patient-reported outcomes (all AND conditions). From 640 hits obtained, 11 articles were included in the analysis. A wide variety of patient characteristics were used as adjustors, and baseline PRO scores and basic sociodemographic and clinical information were included in all models. Overall, the adjustment models used vary considerably. This evaluation is an initial attempt to systematically investigate different CMA approaches for PROs. As a standardized approach has not yet been established, we suggest creating a consensus-based methodological guideline for case-mix adjustment of PROs.

The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline

“…104 Like other quality metrics, to allow for fair clinician comparisons, PROMs may need to be adjusted by case mix or population risk. 105,106 PROM use for quality improvement is endorsed by multiple initiatives as part of standard datasets, 107 including large-scale voluntary or national cancer quality initiatives, 108,109 and is well-established in fields outside oncology. [110][111][112] Nevertheless, tangible evidence for the benefits of such approaches in oncology is still limited.…”

Is the QCI framework suited for monitoring outcomes and costs in a teaching hospital using value-based healthcare principles? A retrospective cohort study

“…The average observed RO is the average RO over all the quarters. Therefore, case-mix adjusted RO values are calculated as follows:22…”

International Variations in Surgical Quality of Care in Men With Prostate Cancer: Results From the TrueNTH Global Registry

“…Casemix adjustment was performed including patients' characteristics that were comparable between different countries. 16 Eligible adjustors must be specific and relevant to PC (care) and outcomes should not capture information about the treatment itself (ie, surgical approach) or the provider/country (ie, case load), to avoid overadjustment. 23 Thus, the following adjustors were chosen on the basis of literature 12 For variation in adjusted outcomes and the influence of country on the adjusted outcomes of providers, two approaches were used:…”