The call for quality measurement to focus on outcomes rather than care processes is loud and persistent. However, robust consideration of problems with the validity of outcome measures is often lacking. In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Silva and colleagues1 make an important contribution to that discussion. They used data from the Veterans Health Administration to examine trends in mortality 30 days following hospital admission for veterans with heart failure or pneumonia. Risk-adjustment models that used only comorbidity data to assess risk of death overestimated declines in risk-adjusted mortality compared with models that used measures of severity of illness. This finding is important by itself, but it also has broader ramifications.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Chassin MR. Getting Better at Measuring Hospital Mortality. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(3):355–356. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.6574
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: