AIMS: This study aims to assess the quality of routinely collected comorbidity data in New Zealand which are increasingly used in health service planning and research. METHODS: Detailed medical notes-based comorbidity data from a cohort study of New Zealanders diagnosed with colon cancer in 1996-2003, were compared with routine hospital discharge data collected from the same patients using 1-year and 8-year lookback periods. We compared agreement between data sources for individual conditions, Charlson comorbidity index scores and total comorbidity counts using McNemar's p-test and the kappa statistic. We also assessed the association of comorbidity with all-cause survival using Cox proportional hazard models using data ascertained from the two sources. RESULTS: Among these 569 patients, we found generally higher comorbidity was measured from notes than administrative data, with better comparability with an 8-year lookback period. Regardless of source of data, all measures of comorbidity significantly improved the ability of multivariable models to explain all-cause survival, but using both data sources combined resulted in better risk adjustment than either source separately. CONCLUSION: While differences in medical notes and administrative comorbidity data exist, the latter provides a reasonably useful source of accessible information on comorbidity for risk adjustment particularly in multivariable models.
AIMS: This study aims to assess the quality of routinely collected comorbidity data in New Zealand which are increasingly used in health service planning and research. METHODS: Detailed medical notes-based comorbidity data from a cohort study of New Zealanders diagnosed with colon cancer in 1996-2003, were compared with routine hospital discharge data collected from the same patients using 1-year and 8-year lookback periods. We compared agreement between data sources for individual conditions, Charlson comorbidity index scores and total comorbidity counts using McNemar's p-test and the kappa statistic. We also assessed the association of comorbidity with all-cause survival using Cox proportional hazard models using data ascertained from the two sources. RESULTS: Among these 569 patients, we found generally higher comorbidity was measured from notes than administrative data, with better comparability with an 8-year lookback period. Regardless of source of data, all measures of comorbidity significantly improved the ability of multivariable models to explain all-cause survival, but using both data sources combined resulted in better risk adjustment than either source separately. CONCLUSION: While differences in medical notes and administrative comorbidity data exist, the latter provides a reasonably useful source of accessible information on comorbidity for risk adjustment particularly in multivariable models.
Authors: Martin Soo; Lynn M Robertson; Tariq Ali; Laura E Clark; Nicholas Fluck; Marjorie Johnston; Angharad Marks; Gordon J Prescott; William Cairns S Smith; Corri Black Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2014-04-21
Authors: Naomi Brewer; Barry Borman; Diana Sarfati; Mona Jeffreys; Steven T Fleming; Soo Cheng; Neil Pearce Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Henrik Møller; Victoria H Coupland; Daniela Tataru; Michael D Peake; Anders Mellemgaard; Thomas Round; David R Baldwin; Matthew E J Callister; Erik Jakobsen; Peter Vedsted; Richard Sullivan; James Spicer Journal: Thorax Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Mohammad Akhtar Hussain; Judith M Katzenellenbogen; Frank M Sanfilippo; Kevin Murray; Sandra C Thompson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 3.240