Cited by 333Healthcare Quality and ManagementPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Failure-to-Rescue: Comparing Definitions to Measure Quality of Care

Silber, Jeffrey H., Romano, Patrick S., Rosen, Amy K., Wang, Yanli, Even-Shoshan, Orit, Volpp, Kevin G.·2007·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Use of failure-to-rescue (FTR) as an indicator of hospital quality has increased over the past decade, but recent authors have used different sets of complications and deaths to define this measure. This study examines the reliability and validity of different FTR measures currently in use. RESEARCH DESIGN: We studied 3 definitions: (1) "original" FTR (using all deaths); (2) FTR-N, a "nursing sensitive" definition that uses only specific complications and deaths; and (3) FTR-A [another restricted definition of FTR used by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for analyzing Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data]. Each FTR measure was applied to 403,679 general surgical patients across 1567 hospitals reported in 1999-2000 Medicare MEDPAR data. RESULTS: Although FTR used all deaths, FTR-N and FTR-A definitions omitted 49% and 42% of deaths, respectively. Reliability was better for FTR than FTR-A or FTR-N (rho = 0.32 vs. 0.18 vs. 0.18, respectively). VALIDITY: Hospitals ranked by adjusted mortality were highly correlated with FTR (Kendall's tau = 0.83) and less correlated with FTR-A (tau = 0.43) and FTR-N (tau = 0.41). Adjusting for patient characteristics, all FTR measures showed strong associations with bed-to-nurse ratio, nursing mix, teaching status, and hospital size; however, hospital "high technology" was not as well associated with FTR-N. CONCLUSIONS: For general surgery, more limited definitions used by FTR-N and FTR-A omit over 40% of deaths, display less reliability, and may have more questionable validity than the original FTR measure. We encourage analysts to use the original FTR definition that uses all deaths when analyzing hospital quality of care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31812e01cc

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silber, J. H., Romano, P. S., Rosen, A. K., Wang, Y., Even-Shoshan, O., & Volpp, K. G.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
  • Silber, Jeffrey H.
  • Rosen, Amy K.
  • Wang, Yanli
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2007-10
Volume
45
Issue
10
Pages
918-925
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068198741
Cited by
333
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 19
FWCI
20.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL082637)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
failure to rescue, hospital quality indicators, general surgery, mortality, reliability statistics, validity, teaching hospitals, hospital size, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
MeSH terms
Medicare, Hospital Administration, Humans, Nursing Service, Hospital, Surgical Procedures, Operative, United States, Reproducibility of Results, United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Hospital Mortality, Treatment Failure, Quality Indicators, Health Care

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