Administrative versus clinical data for coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards: The view from California

Medical Care

Volumn 44, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 687-695

  Parker, Joseph P ^a   Li, Zhongmin ^c   Damberg, Cheryl L ^d   Danielsen, Beate ^e   Carlisle, David M ^b  

^a Healthcare Outcomes Center   (United States)

^b California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Pacific Business Group on Health   (United States)

^e Health Information Solutions Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

Administrative data; Clinical registry; Heart bypass surgery; Hospital quality; In hospital mortality; Outcomes research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMORBIDITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; MALE; MORTALITY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REGISTER; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

CALIFORNIA; COMORBIDITY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT DISCHARGE; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; REGISTRIES; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 33746700924     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000215815.70506.b6     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Jollis JG, et al. Using Medicare data to assess provider quality for CABG surgery: does it work well enough? Health Serv Res. 1997;31:659-678.
2. Weintraub WS, Deaton C, Shaw L, et al. Can cardiovascular clinical characteristics be identified and outcome models be developed from an in-patient claims database? Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:166-169.
3. Landon B, Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, et al. Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the case of CABG surgery. Inquiry. 1996;33: 155-166.
4. Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M, et al. Predicting in-hospital deaths from coronary artery bypass graft surgery: do different severity measures give different predictions? Med Care. 1998;36:28-39.
5. Roos LL, Stranc L, James RC, et al. Complications, comorbidities, and mortality: Improving classification and prediction. Health Serv Res. 1997;32:229-242.
6. Ghali WA, Rothwell DM, Quan H, et al. A Canadian comparison of data sources for CABG outcome report cards. Am Heart J. 2000; 140:402-408.
7. Ghali WA, Quan H, Brant R. Risk adjustment using administrative data: impact of a diagnosis-type indicator. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:519-524.
8. Hartz AJ, Kuhn EM. Comparing hospitals that perform coronary artery bypass surgery: the effect of outcome measures and data sources. Am J Public. Health, 1994;84:1609-1614.
9. Texas Department of State Health Services. Indicators of Inpatient Care in Texas Hospitals, 2002 Hospital Level Reports. Austin, TX: Texas Department of State Health Services; 2004.
10. New York State Hospital Report Card. Buffalo, NY: Niagara Health Quality Coalition; 2003.
11. Oregon Health Policy and Research. Oregon hospital quality indicators [OHPR web site]. July 21, 2005. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/ DAS/OHPPR. Accessed September 19, 2005.
12. Parker JP, Li Z, Damberg CL, et al. The California Report on Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery 2000-2002 Hospital Data. San Francisco: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development and the Pacific Business Group on Health; February 2005.
13. Healthcare Quality and Analysis Division. Report on Heart Attack Outcomes in California 1996-1998, Volume 1: User's Guide. Sacramento, CA: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development; 2002.
14. Hospital Outcomes Center. Report on Hospital Outcomes for Community-Acquired Pneumonia in California, 1999-2001. Sacramento, CA: Healthcare Quality and Analysis Division, California Office of State-wide Health Planning and Development; 2004.
15. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 1983; 148:839-843.
16. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley and Son; 1989.
17. Adult Cardiac Surgery in New York State 2000-2002. New York: New York State Department of Health; 2004.
18. Division of Health Care Quality & Oversight. Cardiac Surgery in New Jersey 2001: Technical Report. Trenton, NJ: Department of Health and Senior Services; 2004.
19. Rosenthal GE, Sarrazin MV, Hannan EL. In-hospital mortality following coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Veterans Health Administration and private sector hospitals. Med Care. 2003;41:522-535.
20. Shroyer ALW, Coombs LP, Peterson ED, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons: 30-day operative mortality and morbidity risk models. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:1856-1865.
21. Grover FL, Shroyer ALW, Hammermeister K, et al. A decade's experience with quality improvement in cardiac surgery using the Veterans Affairs and Society of Thoracic Surgeons national databases. Ann Surg. 2001;234:464-474.
22. O'Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM, et al. Multivariate prediction of in-hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 1992;85:2110-2118.
23. Stukenborg GJ, Wagner DP, Connors AF Jr. Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalization. Med Care. 2001;39:727-739.
24. Zhang, JX, Iwashyna T.J, Christakis NA. The performance of different lookback periods and sources of information for Charlson comorbidity adjustments in Medicare claims. Med Care. 1999;37:1128-1139.
25. Wang PS, Walker A, Tsuang M, et al. Strategies for improving comorbidity measures based on Medicare and Medicaid claims data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:571-578.
26. Peterson ED, DeLong EF, Muhlbaier LH, et al. Challenges in comparing risk-adjusted bypass surgery mortality results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:2174-2184.
27. Humphries KH, Rankin JM, Carere RG, et al. Co-morbidity data in outcomes research: are clinical data derived from administrative databases a reliable alternative to chart review? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:343-349.
28. Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, et al. Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:844-850.
29. Romano PS, Roos LL, Luft HS, et al. A comparison of administrative versus clinical data: coronary artery bypass surgery as an example. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:249-260.
30. Romano PS, Mark DH. Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and its implications for quality assessment. Med Care. 1994;32:81-90.
31. Hannan EL, Kilburn H, Jr, Lindsey ML, et al. Clinical versus administrative data bases for CABG surgery. Does it matter? Med Care. 1992;30:892-907.
32. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics Workgroup on Quality. Measuring Health Care Quality: Obstacles and Opportunities. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; May 2004.