Validation of congenital anomaly coding in Canada's administrative databases compared with a congenital anomaly registry

Birth Defects Research Part A - Clinical and Molecular Teratology

Volumn 100, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 59-66

  Metcalfe, Amy ^a,b   Sibbald, Barbara ^c   Lowry, R Brian ^c,d,e,f   Tough, Suzanne ^d,e,f   Bernier, Francois P ^d,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^f ALBERTA CHILDREN S HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Alberta; Congenital anomalies; Databases, factual; Health services research; International classification of disease; Medical records; Validity

Indexed keywords

ALBERTA; CONGENITAL ANOMALIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASE; MEDICAL RECORDS; VALIDITY;

ALBERTA; AMBULATORY CARE; CLINICAL CODING; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL MONITORING; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; MEDICAL RECORDS; REGISTRIES;

EID: 84894264266     PISSN: 15420752     EISSN: 15420760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23206     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Banerjee E, Zabel E, Alexander B. 2012. Comparison of defects identified through Minnesota's Birth Defects Information System and vital records, 2006-2008. J Registry Manag 39:8-12.
2. Bedard T, Lowry RB, Sibbald B. 2012a. ICD-10 coding for congenital anomalies: a Canadian experience. J Registry Manag 39:4-7.
3. Bedard T, Lowry RB, Sibbald B, et al. 2012b. Congenital heart defect case ascertainment by the Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 94:449-458.
4. Callif-Daley FA, Huether CA, Edmonds LD. 1995. Evaluating false positives in two hospital discharge data sets of the Birth Defects Monitoring Program. Public Health Rep 110:154-160.
5. Cronk CE, Malloy ME, Pelech AN, et al. 2003. Completeness of state administrative databases for surveillance of congenital heart disease. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 67:597-603.
6. De Coster C, Quan H, Elford R, et al. 2010. Follow-through after calling a nurse telephone advice line: a population-based study. Fam Pract 27:271-278.
7. Feldkamp M, Macleod L, Young L, et al. 2005. The methodology of the Utah Birth Defect Network: congenital heart defects as an illustration. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 73:693-699.
8. Frohnert BK, Lussky RC, Alms MA, et al. 2005. Validity of hospital discharge data for identifying infants with cardiac defects. J Perinatol 25:737-742.
9. Garvin JH, Weiner MG. 2007. Clinicians and coders are different: examples of disparities in primary care coding. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 961.
10. Hexter AC, Harris JA, Roeper P, et al. 1990. Evaluation of the hospital discharge diagnoses index and the birth certificate as sources of information on birth defects. Public Health Rep 105:296-307.
11. Lowry RB. 2008. Congenital anomalies surveillance in Canada. Can J Public Health 99:483-485.
12. Lowry RB, Thunem NY, Anderson-Redick S. 1989. Alberta Congenital Anomalies Surveillance System. CMAJ 141:1155-1159.
13. Metcalfe A, Lyon AW, Johnson JA, et al. 2013. Improving completeness of ascertainment and quality of information for pregnancies through linkage of administrative and clinical data records. Ann Epidemiol 23:444-447.
14. Paquette D, Lowry RB, Sauve R. 2006. Two to three percent of infants are born with a congenital anomaly, but who's counting? A national survey of congenital anomalies surveillance in Canada. Chronic Dis Can 27:36-38.
15. Riley M, Phyland S, Halliday J. 2004. Validation study of the Victorian Birth Defects Register. J Paediatr Child Health 40:544-548.
16. Salemi JL, Tanner JP, Block S, et al. 2011. The relative contribution of data sources to a birth defects registry utilizing passive multisource ascertainment methods: does a smaller birth defects case ascertainment net lead to overall or disproportionate loss? J Registry Manag 38:30-38.
17. Salemi JL, Tanner JP, Kennedy S, et al. 2012. A comparison of two surveillance strategies for selected birth defects in Florida. Public Health Rep 127:391-400.
18. Schoellhorn KJ, Collins S. 2010. Evaluation of passive surveillance for NTD-affected births in Alaska: a case verification study, birth years 1996-2007. J Registry Manag 37:4-9.
19. Virnig BA, McBean M. 2001. Administrative data for public health surveillance and planning. Annu Rev Public Health 22:213-230.
20. Wang FL, Gabos S, Sibbald B, Lowry RB. 2001. Completeness and accuracy of the birth registry data on congenital anomalies in Alberta, Canada. Chronic Dis Can 22:57-66.
21. Wen SW, Rouleau J, Lowry RB, et al. 2000. Congenital anomalies ascertained by two record systems run in parallel in the Canadian Province of Alberta. Can J Public Health 91:193-196.