Examining hospital variation on multiple indicators of stroke quality of care

Background — Provider profiling involves comparing the performance of hospitals on indicators of quality of care. Typically, provider profiling examines the performance of hospitals on each quality indicator in isolation. Consequently, one cannot formally examine whether hospitals that have poor performance on one indicator also have poor performance on a second indicator.

Methods — We used Bayesian multivariate response random effects logistic regression model to simultaneously examine variation and covariation in multiple binary indicators across hospitals. We considered 7 binary patient-level indicators of quality of care for patients presenting to hospital with a diagnosis of acute stroke. We examined between-hospital variation in these 7 indicators across 86 hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

Results — The number of patients eligible for each indicator ranged from 1321 to 14 079. There were 7 pairs of indicators for which there was a strong correlation between a hospital’s performance on each of the 2 indicators. Twenty-nine of the 86 of hospitals had a probability higher than 0.90 of having worse performance than average on at least 4 of the 7 indicators. Seven of the 86 of hospitals had a probability higher than 0.90 of having worse performance than average on at least 5 indicators. Fourteen of the 86 of hospitals had a probability higher than 0.50 of having worse performance than average on at least 6 indicators. No hospitals had a probability higher than 0.50 of having worse performance than average on all 7 indicators.

Conclusions — These findings suggest that there are a small number of hospitals that perform poorly on at least half of the quality indicators, and that certain indicators tend to cluster together. The described methods allow for targeting quality improvement initiatives at these hospitals.