Development of a hospital outcome measure intended for use with electronic health: Records 30-day risk-standardized mortality after acute myocardial infarction

Medical Care

Volumn 53, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 818-826

  McNamara, Robert L ^a,b,c   Wang, Yongfei ^a,b   Partovian, Chohreh ^b   Montague, Julia ^a   Mody, Purav ^b,d   Eddy, Elizabeth ^a   Krumholz, Harlan M ^a,b,e   Bernheim, Susannah M ^a,b  

^a Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^e YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acute myocardial infarction; Electronic health records; Hospital performance measure; Mortality

Indexed keywords

CREATININE; TROPONIN;

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CARDIAC PATIENT; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HEART RATE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; AGED; GOVERNMENT; HOSPITAL; INSURANCE; MORTALITY; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; REGISTER; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED STATES;

AGED; CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (U.S.); ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; REGISTRIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84942588383     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: 15371948     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000402     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bratzler DW, Normand SL, Wang Y, et al. An administrative claims model for profiling hospital 30-day mortality rates for pneumonia patients. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17401.
2. 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.
3. Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, et al. An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2006;113:1683-1692.
4. Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, et al. An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with heart failure. Circulation. 2006;113:1693-1701.
5. Gaul L, Shalosky R. Strategies to ease data collection burden. Hosp Peer Rev. 2006;31:6, 11.
6. Bang JH, Hwang SH, Lee EJ, et al. The predictability of claim-databased comorbidity-adjusted models could be improved by using medication data. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:128.
7. Health Information Technology Standards Committee. Available at: https://www.healthit.gov/facas/health-it-standards-committee. Accessed June 30, 2015.
8. Amarasingham R, Moore BJ, Tabak YP, et al. An automated model to identify heart failure patients at risk for 30-day readmission or death using electronic medical record data. Med Care. 2010;48:981-988.
9. Baillie CA, Van Zandbergen C, Tait G, et al. The readmission risk flag: using the electronic health record to automatically identify patients at risk for 30-day readmission. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:689-695.
10. Cannon CP, Battler A, Brindis RG, et al. American College of Cardiology key data elements and definitions for measuring the clinical management and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes. A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Acute Coronary Syndromes Writing Committee). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:2114-2130.
11. Chin CT, Chen AY, Wang TY, et al. Risk adjustment for in-hospital mortality of contemporary patients with acute myocardial infarction: the acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network (ACTION) registry-get with the guidelines (GWTG) acute myocardial infarction mortality model and risk score. Am Heart J. 2011;161:113-122.e2.
12. Krumholz HM, Anderson JL, Bachelder BL, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-STelevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to develop performance measures for STelevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction): developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Emergency Physicians: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Hospital Medicine. Circulation. 2008;118:2596-2648.
13. National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). ACTION Registry-GWTG. 2012. Available at: http://www.ncdr.com/webncdr/ACTION/. Accessed August 24, 2012.
14. Peterson ED, Roe MT, Chen AY, et al. The NCDR ACTION Registry-GWTG: transforming contemporary acute myocardial infarction clinical care. Heart. 2010;96:1798-1802.
15. Messenger JC, Ho KKL, Young CH, et al. The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief: the NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1484-1488.
16. Fleming C, Fisher ES, Chang CH, et al. Studying outcomes and hospital utilization in the elderly. The advantages of a merged data base for Medicare and Veterans Affairs hospitals. Med Care. 1992;30:377-391.
17. Bernheim SM, Wang Y, Spivack S, et al. Measures maintenance technical report: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia 30-day risk-standardized mortality measures.. 2012. Available at: https://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier4&cid=1163010421830. Accessed August 24, 2012.
18. Krumholz HM, Brindis RG, Brush JE, et al. Standards for statistical models used for public reporting of health outcomes: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Writing Group: cosponsored by the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention and the Stroke Council. Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Circulation. 2006;113:456-462.
19. Altenburg HP, Rosenkranz G. Analysis of dose response data with SAS. In: F. Faulbaum et al. 1990: SoftStat 89 - Fortschritte der Statistik-Software 2, G. Fischer Stuttgart, 183-190.
20. Altenburg HP. Estimation of radioimmunoassay data using robust nonlinear regression methods. Computational Statistics. 1992;1:367-372.
21. Dixon WJ, Yuen KK. Trimming and winsorization: a review. Statistische Hefte. 1974;15:157-170.
22. Daniels MJ, Gatsonis C. Hierarchical generalized linear models in the analysis of variations in health care utilization. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:29-42.
23. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The "meaningful use" regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:501-504.
24. Dolin RH, Goodrich K, Kallem C, et al. Setting the standard: EHR quality reporting rises in prominence due to meaningful use. J AHIMA. 2014;85:42-48.
25. Dorsch MF, Lawrance RA, Sapsford RJ, et al. A simple benchmark for evaluating quality of care of patients following acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2001;86:150-154.
26. Krumholz HM, Chen J, Wang Y, et al. Comparing AMI mortality among hospitals in patients 65 years of age and older: evaluating methods of risk adjustment. Circulation. 1999;99:2986-2992.
27. Barringhaus KG, Zelevinsky K, Lovett A, et al. Impact of independent data adjudication on hospital-specific estimates of risk-adjusted mortality following percutaneous coronary interventions in massachusetts. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4:92-98.
28. Curtis JP, Rathore SS, Wang Y, et al. Use and effectiveness of intraaortic balloon pumps among patients undergoing high risk percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:21-30.
29. Drye EE, Normand SL, Wang Y, et al. Comparison of hospital riskstandardized mortality rates calculated by using in-hospital and 30-day models: an observational study with implications for hospital profiling. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(pt 1):19-26.
30. Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, De Long ER, et al. Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems. Implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:844-850.
31. Tang PC, Ralston M, Arrigotti MF, et al. Comparison of methodologies for calculating quality measures based on administrative data versus clinical data from an electronic health record system: implications for performance measures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:10-15.
32. Hammill BG, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, et al. Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiers. Am Heart J. 2009;157:995-1000.
33. Curtis JP, Drye EE, Duffy CO, et al. Hospital 30-day readmission following percutaneous coronary intervention measure: Measure methodology report. Prepared for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Contract # HHSM-500-2008-000251 Task Order 1. Submitted September 29, 2009.