Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Mar 1:11:53.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-53.

Multilevel latent class casemix modelling: a novel approach to accommodate patient casemix

Affiliations

Multilevel latent class casemix modelling: a novel approach to accommodate patient casemix

Mark S Gilthorpe et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Using routinely collected patient data we explore the utility of multilevel latent class (MLLC) models to adjust for patient casemix and rank Trust performance. We contrast this with ranks derived from Trust standardised mortality ratios (SMRs).

Methods: Patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2004 and resident in Northern and Yorkshire regions were identified from the cancer registry database (n = 24,640). Patient age, sex, stage-at-diagnosis (Dukes), and Trust of diagnosis/treatment were extracted. Socioeconomic background was derived using the Townsend Index. Outcome was survival at 3 years after diagnosis. MLLC-modelled and SMR-generated Trust ranks were compared.

Results: Patients were assigned to two classes of similar size: one with reasonable prognosis (63.0% died within 3 years), and one with better prognosis (39.3% died within 3 years). In patient class one, all patients diagnosed at stage B or C died within 3 years; in patient class two, all patients diagnosed at stage A, B or C survived. Trusts were assigned two classes with 51.3% and 53.2% of patients respectively dying within 3 years. Differences in the ranked Trust performance between the MLLC model and SMRs were all within estimated 95% CIs.

Conclusions: A novel approach to casemix adjustment is illustrated, ranking Trust performance whilst facilitating the evaluation of factors associated with the patient journey (e.g. treatments) and factors associated with the processes of healthcare delivery (e.g. delays). Further research can demonstrate the value of modelling patient pathways and evaluating healthcare processes across provider institutions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trust Median Ranks and 95% Confidence Intervals, ordered by the MMLC analysis.

References

    1. Kee F, Wilson RH, Harper C, Patterson CC, McCallion K, Houston RF. et al.Influence of hospital and clinician workload on survival from colorectal cancer: cohort study. BMJ. 1999;318:1381–1385. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Steele RJ. The influence of surgeon case volume on outcome in site-specific cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1996;22:211–213. - PubMed
    1. Monnet E, Faivre J, Raymond L, Garau I. Influence of stage at diagnosis on survival differences for rectal cancer in three European populations. Br J Cancer. 1999;81:463–468. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690716. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Woodman CB, Gibbs A, Scott N, Haboubi NY, Collins S. Are differences in stage at presentation a credible explanation for reported differences in the survival of patients with colorectal cancer in Europe? Br J Cancer. 2001;85:787–790. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1958. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McMillan DC, Hole DJ, McArdle CS. The impact of old age on cancer-specific and non-cancer-related survival following elective potentially curative surgery for Dukes A/B colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:1046–1049. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604669. - DOI - PMC - PubMed