Two approaches are commonly used for identifying high-performing facilities on a performance measure: one, that the facility is in a top quantile (eg, quintile or quartile); and two, that a confidence interval is below (or above) the average of the measure for all facilities. This type of yes/no designation often does not do well in distinguishing high-performing from average-performing facilities. Objective: To illustrate an alternative continuous-valued metric for profiling facilities-the

more »

... ability a facility is in a top quantileand show the implications of using this metric for profiling and payfor-performance. Methods: We created a composite measure of quality from fiscal year 2007 data based on 28 quality indicators from 112 Veterans Health Administration nursing homes. A Bayesian hierarchical multivariate normal-binomial model was used to estimate shrunken rates of the 28 quality indicators, which were combined into a composite measure using opportunity-based weights. Rates were estimated using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods as implemented in WinBUGS. The probability metric was calculated from the simulation replications. Results: Our probability metric allowed better discrimination of high performers than the point or interval estimate of the composite score. In a pay-for-performance program, a smaller top quantile (eg, a quintile) resulted in more resources being allocated to the highest performers, whereas a larger top quantile (eg, being above the median) distinguished less among high performers and allocated more resources to average performers. Conclusion: The probability metric has potential but needs to be evaluated by stakeholders in different types of delivery systems.