[Comparison between administrative and clinical databases in the evaluation of cardiac surgery performance].

BACKGROUND The availability of two contemporary sources of information about coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) interventions, allowed 1) to verify the feasibility of performing outcome evaluation studies using administrative data sources, and 2) to compare hospital performance obtainable using the CABG Project clinical database with hospital performance derived from the use of current administrative data. METHODS Interventions recorded in the CABG Project were linked to the hospital discharge record (HDR) administrative database. Only the linked records were considered for subsequent analyses (46% of the total CABG Project). A new selected population "clinical card-HDR" was then defined. Two independent risk-adjustment models were applied, each of them using information derived from one of the two different sources. Then, HDR information was supplemented with some patient preoperative conditions from the CABG clinical database. The two models were compared in terms of their adaptability to data. Hospital performances identified by the two different models and significantly different from the mean was compared. RESULTS In only 4 of the 13 hospitals considered for analysis, the results obtained using the HDR model did not completely overlap with those obtained by the CABG model. When comparing statistical parameters of the HDR model and the HDR model + patient preoperative conditions, the latter showed the best adaptability to data. CONCLUSIONS In this "clinical card-HDR" population, hospital performance assessment obtained using information from the clinical database is similar to that derived from the use of current administrative data. However, when risk-adjustment models built on administrative databases are supplemented with a few clinical variables, their statistical parameters improve and hospital performance assessment becomes more accurate.

[1]  C. Perucci,et al.  The Italian CABG Outcome Study: short-term outcomes in patients with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. , 2006, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[2]  G. Meyer,et al.  Use of administrative data for clinical quality measurement. , 2005, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[3]  M. Mack,et al.  Does reporting of coronary artery bypass grafting from administrative databases accurately reflect actual clinical outcomes? , 2005, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[4]  Nancy J. Petersen,et al.  Mortality After Cardiac Bypass Surgery: Prediction From Administrative Versus Clinical Data , 2005, Medical care.

[5]  Laura P Coombs,et al.  The Society of Thoracic Surgeons: 30-day operative mortality and morbidity risk models. , 2003, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[6]  F. Forastiere,et al.  Evaluating outcomes of hospital care following coronary artery bypass surgery in Rome, Italy. , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[7]  Asking too much of administrative data? , 2003, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[8]  J. Birkmeyer,et al.  Adjusting surgical mortality rates for patient comorbidities: more harm than good? , 2002, Surgery.

[9]  Patrick S Romano,et al.  Can Administrative Data Be Used to Compare Postoperative Complication Rates Across Hospitals? , 2002, Medical care.

[10]  Kwan Hur,et al.  Identifying patient preoperative risk factors and postoperative adverse events in administrative databases: results from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[11]  Bradley G Hammill,et al.  A decade of change--risk profiles and outcomes for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, 1990-1999: a report from the STS National Database Committee and the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Society of Thoracic Surgeons. , 2002, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  J. Tu,et al.  A Canadian comparison of data sources for coronary artery bypass surgery outcome "report cards". , 2000, American heart journal.

[13]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  Does clinical evidence support ICD-9-CM diagnosis coding of complications? , 2000, Medical care.

[14]  C D Naylor,et al.  Assessing the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery: how many risk factors are enough? Steering Committee of the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  L. Iezzoni Assessing Quality Using Administrative Data , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  J. Tu,et al.  Coronary Artery Bypass Mortality Rates in Ontario , 1996 .

[17]  E L Hannan,et al.  Identification of preoperative variables needed for risk adjustment of short-term mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Working Group Panel on the Cooperative CABG Database Project. , 1996, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the influence of the severity-adjustment method. , 1996, American journal of public health.

[19]  L. Iezzoni,et al.  Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the case of CABG surgery. , 1996, Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing.

[20]  N. Wintfeld,et al.  Report cards on cardiac surgeons. Assessing New York State's approach. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  E. Kuhn,et al.  Comparing hospitals that perform coronary artery bypass surgery: the effect of outcome measures and data sources. , 1994, American journal of public health.

[22]  D. Mark,et al.  Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and its implications for quality assessment. , 1994, Medical care.

[23]  E L Hannan,et al.  Clinical Versus Administrative Data Bases for CABG Surgery: Does it Matter , 1992, Medical care.