BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) use in Quebec may be measured from varied sources, eg, patient's self-reports, hospital medical charts, and provincial health insurance claims databases. Determining the relative validity of each source is complicated because none is a gold standard. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the validity of different measures of ED use without arbitrarily assuming one is perfect. SUBJECTS: Data were obtained from a nursing liaison intervention study for frail seniors visiting EDs at 4 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal. MEASURES: The number of ED visits during 2 consecutive follow-up periods of 1 and 4 months after baseline was obtained from patient interviews, from medical charts of participating hospitals, and from the provincial health insurance claims database. METHODS: Latent class analysis was used to estimate the validity of each source. The impact of the following covariates on validity was evaluated: hospital visited, patient's demographic/clinical characteristics, risk of functional decline, nursing liaison intervention, duration of recall, previous ED use, and previous hospitalization. RESULTS: The patient's self-report was found to be the least accurate (sensitivity: 70%, specificity: 88%). Claims databases had the greatest validity, especially after defining claims made on consecutive days as part of the same ED visit (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 98%). The validity of the medical chart was intermediate. Lower sensitivity (or under-reporting) on the self-report appeared to be associated with higher age, low comorbidity and shorter length of recall. CONCLUSION: The claims database is the most valid method of measuring ED use among seniors in Quebec compared with hospital medical charts and patient-reported use.
BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) use in Quebec may be measured from varied sources, eg, patient's self-reports, hospital medical charts, and provincial health insurance claims databases. Determining the relative validity of each source is complicated because none is a gold standard. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the validity of different measures of ED use without arbitrarily assuming one is perfect. SUBJECTS: Data were obtained from a nursing liaison intervention study for frail seniors visiting EDs at 4 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal. MEASURES: The number of ED visits during 2 consecutive follow-up periods of 1 and 4 months after baseline was obtained from patient interviews, from medical charts of participating hospitals, and from the provincial health insurance claims database. METHODS: Latent class analysis was used to estimate the validity of each source. The impact of the following covariates on validity was evaluated: hospital visited, patient's demographic/clinical characteristics, risk of functional decline, nursing liaison intervention, duration of recall, previous ED use, and previous hospitalization. RESULTS: The patient's self-report was found to be the least accurate (sensitivity: 70%, specificity: 88%). Claims databases had the greatest validity, especially after defining claims made on consecutive days as part of the same ED visit (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 98%). The validity of the medical chart was intermediate. Lower sensitivity (or under-reporting) on the self-report appeared to be associated with higher age, low comorbidity and shorter length of recall. CONCLUSION: The claims database is the most valid method of measuring ED use among seniors in Quebec compared with hospital medical charts and patient-reported use.
Authors: Ellen C Meltzer; Tali Averbuch; Jeffrey H Samet; Richard Saitz; Khelda Jabbar; Christine Lloyd-Travaglini; Jane M Liebschutz Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Li-Tzy Wu; Marvin S Swartz; Zunyou Wu; Paolo Mannelli; Chongming Yang; Dan G Blazer Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Shannon Gravely-Witte; Donna E Stewart; Neville Suskin; Lyall Higginson; David A Alter; Sherry L Grace Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Marlies T van Dalen; Jacqueline J Suijker; Janet MacNeil-Vroomen; Marjon van Rijn; Eric P Moll van Charante; Sophia E de Rooij; Bianca M Buurman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juell Homco; Hélène Carabin; Zsolt Nagykaldi; Tabitha Garwe; F Daniel Duffy; David Kendrick; Sydney Martinez; Yan Daniel Zhao; Julie Stoner Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01