Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data

Open access
Jarman, B., Gault, S., Alves, B., Hider, A., Dolan, S., Cook, A., Hurwitz, B., Iezzoni, L. I·1999·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain hospital inpatient mortality in England and to determine which factors best explain variation in standardised hospital death ratios. DESIGN: Weighted linear regression analysis of routinely collected data over four years, with hospital standardised mortality ratios as the dependent variable. SETTING: England. SUBJECTS: Eight million discharges from NHS hospitals when the primary diagnosis was one of the diagnoses accounting for 80% of inpatient deaths. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital standardised mortality ratios and predictors of variations in these ratios. RESULTS: The four year crude death rates varied across hospitals from 3.4% to 13.6% (average for England 8.5%), and standardised hospital mortality ratios ranged from 53 to 137 (average for England 100). The percentage of cases that were emergency admissions (60% of total hospital admissions) was the best predictor of this variation in mortality, with the ratio of hospital doctors to beds and general practitioners to head of population the next best predictors. When analyses were restricted to emergency admissions (which covered 93% of all patient deaths analysed) number of doctors per bed was the best predictor. CONCLUSION: Analysis of hospital episode statistics reveals wide variation in standardised hospital mortality ratios in England. The percentage of total admissions classified as emergencies is the most powerful predictor of variation in mortality. The ratios of doctors to head of population served, both in hospital and in general practice, seem to be critical determinants of standardised hospital death rates; the higher these ratios, the lower the death rates in both cases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1515

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
Jarman, B., Gault, S., Alves, B., Hider, A., Dolan, S., Cook, A., Hurwitz, B., & Iezzoni, L. I.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-06-05
Volume
318
Issue
7197
Pages
1515-1520
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2097960474
Cited by
386
References
33
FWCI
27.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1515
The paper
Jarman, B., Gault, S., Alves, B., Hider, A., Dolan, S., Cook, A., Hurwitz, B., & Iezzoni, L. I. (1999). Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1515

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.