A Comparison of Clinical Registry Versus Administrative Claims Data for Reporting of 30-Day Surgical Complications
Authors:
- Elise H. LawsonELElise H. Lawson
- Rachel LouieRLRachel Louie
- David S. ZingmondDZDavid S. Zingmond
- Robert H. BrookRBRobert H. Brook
- Bruce L. HallBHBruce L. Hall
- Lein HanLHLein Han
- Michael RappMRMichael Rapp
- Clifford Y. KoCKClifford Y. Ko
Top Cited Papers
- 1 December 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Annals of Surgery
- Vol. 256 (6) , 973-981
Abstract
To compare the recording of 30-day postoperative complications between a national clinical registry and Medicare inpatient claims data and to determine whether the addition of outpatient claims data improves concordance with the clinical registry. Policymakers are increasingly discussing use of postoperative complication rates for value-based purchasing. There is debate regarding the optimal data source for such measures. Patient records (2005-2008) from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) were linked to Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims data sets. We assessed the ability of (1) Medicare inpatient claims and (2) Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims to detect a core set of ACS-NSQIP 30-day postoperative complications: superficial surgical site infection (SSI), deep/organ-space SSI, any SSI (superficial and/or deep/organ-space), urinary tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism (DVT and/or pulmonary embolism), and myocardial infarction. Agreement of patient-level complications by ACS-NSQIP versus Medicare was assessed by κ statistics. A total of 117,752 patients from more than 200 hospitals were studied. The sensitivity of inpatient claims data for detecting ACS-NSQIP complications ranged from 0.27 to 0.78; the percentage of false-positives ranged from 48% to 84%. Addition of outpatient claims data improved sensitivity slightly but also greatly increased the percentage of false-positives. Agreement was routinely poor between clinical and claims data for patient-level complications. This analysis demonstrates important differences between ACS-NSQIP and Medicare claims data sets for measuring surgical complications. Poor accuracy potentially makes claims data suboptimal for evaluating surgical complications. These findings have meaningful implications for performance measures currently being considered.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- How best to measure surgical quality? comparison of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (AHRQ-PSI) and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) postoperative adverse events at a single institutionSurgery, 2011
- Quality Improvement in Surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program ApproachAdvances in Surgery, 2010
- Effect of Postdischarge Morbidity and Mortality on Comparisons of Hospital Surgical QualityAnnals of Surgery, 2010
- Toward Robust Information: Data Quality and Inter-Rater Reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement ProgramJournal of the American College of Surgeons, 2010
- Validity of Selected AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators Based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program DataHealth Services Research, 2009
- Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvementSurgery, 2008
- The NSQIP: A new frontier in surgerySurgery, 2005
- Identifying Patient Preoperative Risk Factors and Postoperative Adverse Events in Administrative Databases: Results From The Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement ProgramJournal of the American College of Surgeons, 2002
- Assessing Quality Using Administrative DataAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1997