Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGoyal, D
dc.contributor.authorGuttag, J
dc.contributor.authorSyed, Z
dc.contributor.authorMehta, R
dc.contributor.authorElahi, Z
dc.contributor.authorSaeed, M
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-20T14:46:02Z
dc.date.available2021-01-20T14:46:02Z
dc.date.issued2020-12
dc.identifier.issn1438-8871
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/129462
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Patients' choices of providers when undergoing elective surgeries significantly impact both perioperative outcomes and costs. There exist a variety of approaches that are available to patients for evaluating between different hospital choices. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to compare differences in outcomes and costs between hospitals ranked using popular internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average volumes, average outcomes, and precision machine learning-based rankings for hospital settings performing hip replacements in a large metropolitan area. METHODS: Retrospective data from 4192 hip replacement surgeries among Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 in a the Chicago metropolitan area were analyzed for variations in outcomes (90-day postprocedure hospitalizations and emergency department visits) and costs (90-day total cost of care) between hospitals ranked through multiple approaches: internet-based consumer ratings, quality stars, reputation rankings, average yearly surgical volume, average outcome rates, and machine learning-based rankings. The average rates of outcomes and costs were compared between the patients who underwent surgery at a hospital using each ranking approach in unadjusted and propensity-based adjusted comparisons. RESULTS: Only a minority of patients (1159/4192, 27.6% to 2078/4192, 49.6%) were found to be matched to higher-ranked hospitals for each of the different approaches. Of the approaches considered, hip replacements at hospitals that were more highly ranked by consumer ratings, quality stars, and machine learning were all consistently associated with improvements in outcomes and costs in both adjusted and unadjusted analyses. The improvement was greatest across all metrics and analyses for machine learning-based rankings. CONCLUSIONS: There may be a substantive opportunity to increase the number of patients matched to appropriate hospitals across a broad variety of ranking approaches. Elective hip replacement surgeries performed at hospitals where patients were matched based on patient-specific machine learning were associated with better outcomes and lower total costs of care.en_US
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherJMIR Publications Inc.en_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.2196/22765en_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licenseen_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceJournal of Medical Internet Researchen_US
dc.titleComparing Precision Machine Learning With Consumer, Quality, and Volume Metrics for Ranking Orthopedic Surgery Hospitals: Retrospective Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.citationGoyal, Dev et al. “Comparing Precision Machine Learning With Consumer, Quality, and Volume Metrics for Ranking Orthopedic Surgery Hospitals: Retrospective Study.” Journal of medical Internet research, 22, 12 (December 2020): e22765 © 2020 The Author(s)en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
dc.relation.journalJournal of medical Internet researchen_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticleen_US
eprint.statushttp://purl.org/eprint/status/PeerRevieweden_US
dc.date.updated2020-12-16T18:23:52Z
dspace.orderedauthorsGoyal, D; Guttag, J; Syed, Z; Mehta, R; Elahi, Z; Saeed, Men_US
dspace.date.submission2020-12-16T18:23:54Z
mit.journal.volume22en_US
mit.journal.issue12en_US
mit.licensePUBLISHER_CC
mit.metadata.statusComplete


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record