Methodological Considerations in Generating Provider Performance Score Table 2. Framework for considering which patient characteristics to in Guiding questionsExamples of patient characteristicsAgeSocioeconomic statusAdherenceIs the patient characteristic considered to be beyond control of providers?aYesYesControversialIs the relationship between the characteristic and performance considered acceptable?aYes, for some performance measures (e.g., mortality rates)ControversialControversialInclude characteristic in case mix adjustment?Yes, for some performance measuresControversialControversialAs an alternative to case mix adjustment, present stratified results?A reasonable option, but no advantage over case mix adjustmentYes, may be a good alternativebStratification still controversialca. The answers to these questions are "value judgments" on which CVE stakeholders can attempt to achieve consensus. b. If stratified performance reports display scores on the same scale in each stratum, then performance disparities will be reported. However, if stratified reports display scores on different scales (e.g., a ranking within each stratum), then stratification will have no advantage over case mix adjustment. Both techniques will make performance disparities appear to vanish. c. Like case mix adjustment, stratifying by adherence (i.e., separately reporting performance for "adherent" and "nonadherent" patients) eliminates the incentive to improve adherence.Return to Document Current as of September 2011 Internet Citation: Methodological Considerations in Generating Provider Performance Score: Table 2. Framework for considering which patient characteristics to in. September 2011. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/value/perfscoresmethods/perfsctab2.html
Back
