Development and testing of a new measure of case mix for use in office practice.

Case mix has been shown to be of critical importance in studies of effectiveness and quality of care using health outcomes. How these variables are defined, combined, and used to adjust or increase precision in tests for differences in health outcomes has been a source of controversy. Because existing measures were developed to adjust mortality and have marginal relevance for the adjustment of functional status outcomes, especially in ambulatory settings, the authors developed a measure of case (or patient) mix that is specifically designed to adjust functional status outcomes measured in office practice or out-of-hospital settings. This measure, developed as part of Type II Diabetes Patient Outcomes Research Team project, uses patients' reports of symptoms and conditions, as well as patients' ratings of symptom intensity to characterize total disease burden. It differs from other measures of case mix in lack of dependence on diagnoses. Separate measures were developed for each of 15 different disease categories (e.g., chronic lung disease) grouped by body system affected. Within each measure, questionnaire items were combined to rate the severity of that disease on a 1 to 4 scale, according to definitions provided by clinicians. A single, global measure was developed by aggregating the 15 measures, weighted according to the expected impact of each disease category on functional outcomes and disability. In a sample of 1,738 patients, significant relationships were observed between the global case mix measure and functional status, disability days, and service utilization.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

[1]  D M Steinwachs,et al.  Development and Application of a Population-Oriented Measure of Ambulatory Care Case-Mix , 1991, Medical care.

[2]  C. Mackenzie,et al.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[3]  S H Kaplan,et al.  Principles and practice of case mix adjustment: applications to end-stage renal disease. , 1994, American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation.

[4]  P Sharkey,et al.  The importance of severity of illness in assessing hospital mortality. , 1990, JAMA.

[5]  D Draper,et al.  Interpreting hospital mortality data. The role of clinical risk adjustment. , 1988, JAMA.

[6]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Differences in the mix of patients among medical specialties and systems of care. Results from the medical outcomes study. , 1992, JAMA.

[7]  N. Goldfield,et al.  Design of a Prospective Payment Patient Classification System for Ambulatory Care , 1993, Health care financing review.

[8]  G. Coffman,et al.  Admission and Mid-Stay MedisGroups® Scores as Predictors of Hospitalization Charges , 1991, Medical care.

[9]  S Greenfield,et al.  The Importance of Co-existent Disease in the Occurrence of Postoperative Complications and One-Year Recovery in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Replacement: Comorbidity and Outcomes After Hip Replacement , 1993, Medical care.

[10]  R. Elashoff,et al.  Flaws in mortality data. The hazards of ignoring comorbid disease. , 1988, JAMA.

[11]  D. K. Williams,et al.  Assessing hospital-associated deaths from discharge data. The role of length of stay and comorbidities. , 1988, JAMA.

[12]  S H Kaplan,et al.  The uses of outcomes research for medical effectiveness, quality of care, and reimbursement in type II diabetes. , 1994, Diabetes care.

[13]  G. Coffman,et al.  Predicting In-Hospital Mortality: A Comparison of Severity Measurement Approaches , 1992, Medical care.