Optimizing ACS NSQIP Modeling for Evaluation of Surgical Quality and Risk: Patient Risk Adjustment, Procedure Mix Adjustment, Shrinkage Adjustment, and Surgical Focus
Abstract
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) collects detailed clinical data from participating hospitals using standardized data definitions, analyzes these data, and provides participating hospitals with reports that permit risk-adjusted comparisons with a surgical quality standard. Since its inception, the ACS NSQIP has worked to refine surgical outcomes measurements and enhance statistical methods to improve the reliability and validity of this hospital profiling. From an original focus on controlling for between-hospital differences in patient risk factors with logistic regression, ACS NSQIP has added a variable to better adjust for the complexity and risk profile of surgical procedures (procedure mix adjustment) and stabilized estimates derived from small samples by using a hierarchical model with shrinkage adjustment. New models have been developed focusing on specific surgical procedures (eg, "Procedure Targeted" models), which provide opportunities to incorporate indication and other procedure-specific variables and outcomes to improve risk adjustment. In addition, comparative benchmark reports given to participating hospitals have been expanded considerably to allow more detailed evaluations of performance. Finally, procedures have been developed to estimate surgical risk for individual patients. This article describes the development of, and justification for, these new statistical methods and reporting strategies in ACS NSQIP.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Patient-level data were obtained from ACS NSQIP, a validated system for collection of high-quality clinical data to measure surgical outcomes.
“Patient-level data on patient characteristics, coexisting conditions, operative details, and surgical outcomes were obtained for general surgery cases from ACS NSQIP, a validated system developed in the 1990s for collection of high-quality clinical data to measure surgical outcomes; the system has been described extensively elsewhere.33,35,42”
From National Cluster-Randomized Trial of Duty-Hour Flexibility in Surgical Training (2016) · cites this paper as [35]
Cites
Shrinkage observed-to-expected ratios for robust and transparent large-scale pattern discovery
Norén, G. N., Hopstadius, J., & Bate, A. (2013) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/0962280211403604 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability
BRIER, G. W. (1950) · Monthly Weather Review · doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1950)078%3c0001:vofeit%3e2.0.co;2 · cited 1×
“A third model statistic is the Brier score.(12) It is defined as the mean squared difference between patients’ predicted probabilities and observed outcomes (1 or 0 depending on event or nonevent).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
National Cluster-Randomized Trial of Duty-Hour Flexibility in Surgical Training
Bilimoria, K. Y., Chung, J. W., Hedges, L. V., Dahlke, A. R., Love, R., Cohen, M. E., Hoyt, D. B., Yang, A. D., Tarpley, J. L., Mellinger, J. D., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1515724 · Cited by 460 · see citing works
Self-citationAn examination of American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator accuracy.
Cohen, M. E., Liu, Y., Ko, C. Y., & Hall, B. L. (2017) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.057 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Self-citationRajaram, R., Chung, J. W., Jones, A. T., Cohen, M. E., Dahlke, A. R., Ko, C. Y., Tarpley, J. L., Lewis, F. R., Hoyt, D. B., & Bilimoria, K. Y. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15277 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Self-citationRajaram, R., Chung, J. W., Cohen, M. E., Dahlke, A. R., Yang, A. D., Meeks, J. J., Ko, C. Y., Tarpley, J. L., Hoyt, D. B., & Bilimoria, K. Y. (2015) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.06.010 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citationProcedure-based postoperative risk prediction using NSQIP data.
Clark, D. E., Fitzgerald, T. L., & Dibbins, A. W. (2018) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.003 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cohen, M. E., Ko, C. Y., Bilimoria, K. Y., Zhou, L., Huffman, K., Wang, X., Liu, Y., Kraemer, K., Meng, X., Merkow, R., Chow, W., Matel, B., Richards, K., Hart, A. J., Dimick, J. B., & Hall, B. L.
- Affiliations
- American College of Surgeons (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cohen, Mark E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 217
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 336-346e1
- ISSN
- 1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2007941691
- Cited by
- 583
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 10
- FWCI
- 95.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Surgeons (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Keywords
- National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, surgical quality, risk adjustment, hospital benchmarking, hospital performance evaluation
- MeSH terms
- Hospitals, Humans, Surgical Procedures, Operative, United States, Models, Statistical, Logistic Models, Benchmarking, Risk Adjustment, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review