Combining Multiple Indicators of Clinical Quality

An Evaluation of Different Analytic Approaches

Published in: Medical Care, v. 45, no. 6, June 2007, p. 489-496

Posted on on December 31, 2006

by David Reeves, Stephen M. Campbell, John L. Adams, Paul G. Shekelle, Evan Kontopantelis, Martin Roland

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: To compare different methods of combining quality indicators scores to produce composite scores that summarize the overall performance of health care providers. METHODS: Five methods for computing a composite quality score were compared: the All-or-None, the 70% Standard, the Overall Percentage, the Indicator Average, and the Patient Average. The first 2 criterion-referenced methods assess the degree to which a provider has reached a threshold for quality of care for each patient (100% or 70%). The remaining absolute score methods produce scores representing the proportion of required care successfully provided. Each method was applied to 2 quality indicator datasets, derived from audits of UK family practitioner records. Dataset A included quality indicator data for 1178 patients from 16 family practices covering 23 acute, chronic, and preventative conditions. Dataset B included data on 3285 patients from 60 family practices, covering 3 chronic conditions. RESULTS: The results varied considerably depending on the method of aggregation used, resulting in substantial differences in how providers scored. The results also varied considerably for the 2 datasets. There was more agreement between methods for dataset B, but for dataset A 6 of the 16 practices moved between the top and bottom quartiles depending upon the method used. CONCLUSIONS: Different methods of computing composite quality scores can lead to different conclusions being drawn about both relative and absolute quality among health care providers. Different methods are suited to different types of application. The main advantages and disadvantages of each method are described and discussed.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.