CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Efficiency Analysis Using DEAHealthcare Quality and ManagementHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization

A data envelopment analysis approach for measuring the efficiency of Canadian acute care hospitals

Open access
Fixler, Tamás, Paradi, Joseph C, Yang, Xiaopeng·2014·Health Services Management Research
DOI 10.1177/0951484815601876
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis is a methodology particularly well-suited to measuring the efficiency of hospitals because it is able to accommodate multiple heterogeneous inputs and outputs in order to model the complex relationships that exist within them. This research uses data envelopment analysis to develop a model of Canadian hospital production efficiency in collaboration with the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The model is intended to illustrate the utility of data envelopment analysis as a hospital performance measurement tool for Canadian Institute for Health Information and to augment their current hospital performance indicators. The model measures the overall production efficiency of acute care hospitals using labour and capital inputs together with outputs measuring inpatient and outpatient activity. The model also includes non-discretionary variables adjusting for case-mix variations among the hospitals. The model is extensively validated and identifies a set of highly referenced, efficient hospitals ideal for the establishment of best practices.

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 · 10.1177/0951484815601876

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Ali AI, Seiford LM. Translation Invariance in Data Envelopment Analysis, Operations Research Letters, 9, pp. 403 -405, 1990.
  2. Ashton CM, et al. The Association Between the Quality of Inpatient Care and Early Readmission. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122(6), pp. 415 - 421,1995.
  3. Banker RD, Morey RC. Efficiency Analysis for Exogenously Fixed Inputs and Outputs. Operations Research, 34, pp. 513 -521,1986.
  4. Banker RD, et al. An Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis with Some of its Models and Their Uses. Research in Government and Nonprofit Accounting, 5, pp. 125 -163,1989.
  5. Bradley EH, et al. Hospital Quality for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Correlation Among Process Measures and Relationship With Short-Term Mortality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(1), pp. 72- 78, 2006.
  6. Donabedian A, Wheeler JRC, Wyszewianski L. Quality, Cost and Health: An Integrative Model. Medical Care, 20(10), pp. 975 -992, 1982.
  7. Dubois RW, et al. Hospital Inpatient Mortality: Is It a Predictor of Mortality. New England Journal of Medicine, 317(26), pp. 1674 -1680, 1987.
  8. Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E. Reducing Weight Flexibility in Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39(6), pp. 563-576,1988.
  9. Edelstein, B. Bank Branch Intermediation Efficiency Evaluation Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Non-Discretionary Variables. MASc Thesis, Centre for Management of Technology and Entrepreneur ship, University of Toronto, 2004.
  10. Farrell MJ. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120(3), pp. 253-290,1957.
  11. Fetter RB, Freeman JL. Diagnosis Related Groups: Product Line Management within Hospitals. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), pp. 41 -54,1986.
  12. Fizel JL, Nunnikhoven TS. Technical Efficiency of For-Profit and Non- profit Nursing Homes. Managerial and Decision Economics, 13(5), pp. 429-439,1992.
  13. Flood BA, et al. The Relationship Between Intensity and Duration of Medical Services and Outcomes for Hospitalized Patients. Medical Care, 17(11), pp. 1088-1101, 1979.
  14. Giuffrida A, Gravelle H. Measuring Performance in Primary Care: Econometric Analysis and DEA. Applied Economics, 33, pp. 163 -175, 2001.
  15. Hollingsworth B, Smith P. Use of Ratios in Data Envelopment Analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 10, pp. 733 -735,2003.
  16. Jacobs R. Alternative Methods to Examine Hospital Efficiency: Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Health Care Management Science, 4, pp. 103-115, 2001.
  17. Kooreman P. Data Envelopment Analysis and Parametric Frontier Estimation: Complementary Tools. Journal of Health Economics, 13, pp. 345-346,1994.
  18. K.OSS06] Kosseim M, et al. Ranking Hospitals According to Acute Myocardial Infarction: Should Transfers be Included? Medical Care, 44(7), pp. 664 - 670,2006.
  19. Krumholz HM, et al. Measuring Performance for Treating Heart Attacks and Heart Failure: The Case for Outcomes Measurement. Health Affairs, 26(1), pp. 75 -85, 2007.
  20. Lindsay CM. Theory of Government Enterprise. Journal of Political Economy, 84(5), pp. 1061 -1077,1976.
  21. Maniadakis N, Thanassoulis E. Assessing Productivity Changes in UK Hospitals Reflecting Technology and Input Prices. Applied Economics, 32(12), pp. 1575-1589,2000.
  22. Morey RC, et al. The Trade-Off Between Hospital Cost and Quality of Care: An Exploratory Empirical Analysis. Medical Care, 30(8), pp. 677 - 698,1992.
  23. Norris C, Jacobs P, Rapoport J, Hamilton S. ICU and Non-ICU Cost Per Day. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 42(3), pp. 192 -196, 1995.
  24. Olesen OB, Petersen NC. The Use of Data Envelopment Analysis with Probabilistic Assurance Regions for Measuring Hospital Efficiency. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 17, pp. 83 -109,2002.
  25. Ozcan YA, Watts J, Harris II JM, Wogen SE. Provider Experience and Technical Efficiency in the Treatment of Stroke Patients: DEA Approach. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(6), pp. 573 -582, 1998.
  26. Puig-Junoy, J. Technical Efficiency in the Clinical Management of Critically 111 Patients. Health Economics, 1, pp. 263 -277,1998.
  27. Rapoport J, et al. A Comparison of Intensive Care Unit Utilization in Alberta and Western Massachusetts. Critical Care Medicine, 23, pp. 1336 -1346,1995.
  28. Roemer MI, Moustafa AT, Hopkins CE. A Proposed Hospital Quality Index: Hospital Death Rates Adjusted for Case Severity. Health Services Research, 3, pp. 96 -118,1968.
  29. Scott RW, Flood AB, Ewy W. Organizational Determinants of Services, Quality and Cost of Care in Hospitals. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, 57(2), pp. 234 -264,1979.
  30. Sherman HD. Hospital Efficiency Measurement and Evaluation: Empirical Test of a New Technique. Medical Care, 22(10), pp. 922 -938, 1984.
  31. Simchen E, et al. Sequential Logistic Models for 30 Days Mortality After CABG: Pre-operative, Intra-operative and Post-operative Experience - The Israeli CABG Study. European Journal of Epidemiology, 16, pp. 543 -555,2000.
  32. Spertus JA, et al. Challenges and Opportunities in Quantifying the Quality of Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction [Summary from the Acute Myocardial Infarction Working Group of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology First Scientific Forum on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke]. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 41, pp. 1653 - 1663,2003.
  33. Stanford RE. A Frontier Analysis Approach for Benchmarking Hospital Performance in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Health Care Management Science, 7, pp. 145 -154,2004.
  34. Sueyoshi T. DEA Duality on Returns to Scale (RTS) in Production and Cost Analyses: An Occurrence of Multiple Solutions and Differences between Production-Based and Cost-Based RTS Estimates. Management Science, 45(11), pp. 1593 -1608,1999.
  35. Thomas JW, Hofer TP. Research Evidence of the Validity of Risk- Adjusted Mortality Rate as a Measure of Hospital Quality of Care. Medical Care Research and Review, 55(4), pp. 371 -404, 1998.
  36. Worthington AC, Dollery BE. Incorporating Contextual Information in Public Sector Efficiency Analysis: A Comparative Study of NSW Local Government. Applied Economics, 34, pp. 453 -464,2002.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fixler, T., Paradi, J. C., & Yang, X.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Yang, Xiaopeng
ORCID
Venue
Health Services Management Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-08
Volume
27
Issue
3-4
Pages
57-69
ISSN
  • 0951-4848 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1044
DOI
10.1177/0951484815601876
OpenAlex
W2223522101
Cited by
17
References
27
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Health Services Management Research (publishedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Efficiency Analysis Using DEA
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Keywords
hospital efficiency, acute care hospitals, data envelopment analysis, hospital performance evaluation, Canadian Institute for Health Information, risk adjustment, non-discretionary inputs, best practices

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