Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;326:1397-1398 (21 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1397-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORJacobson et al take issue with Dr Foster's publication of mortality league tables and pose four main questions.1
Firstly, they ask what the data mean, citing changes in the type of care provided in hospitals. Hospital standardised mortality ratios were designed to be a robust measure of in-hospital mortality, taking into account differences in patient mix with explicit adjustment for 80 different diagnoses, admission method, age, sex, and length of stay. We found that after adjustment, death rates show no bias against hospitals with more patients staying more than 28 days, or against hospitals with more geriatric beds.2 We agree that hospital mortality is only one outcome measure and is included as such in the "wealth of information" in the hospital guide.
Secondly, they ask whether the results are a valid measure of what they
purport to be, acknowledging Dr Foster's ongoing enhancements to the quality
of the
Paul Aylin, assistant director
Dr Foster Unit at Imperial p.aylin@imperial.ac.uk Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London W2 1PG
Sir Brian Jarman, Director
Dr Foster Unit at Imperial b.jarman@imperial.ac.uk Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary's Campus, London W2 1PG
Tim Kelsey, chief executive
Dr Foster Limited, Sir John Lyon House, London EC4V 3NX