Literature DB >> 21670107

Accuracy of administrative claims data for polypectomy.

Jonathan M Wyse1, Lawrence Joseph, Alan N Barkun, Maida J Sewitch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The frequency of polypectomy is an important indicator of quality assurance for population-based colorectal cancer screening programs. Although administrative databases of physician claims provide population-level data on the performance of polypectomy, the accuracy of the procedure codes has not been examined. We determined the level of agreement between physician claims for polypectomy and documentation of the procedure in endoscopy reports.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients aged 50-80 years who underwent colonoscopy at seven study sites in Montréal, Que., between January and March 2007. We obtained data on physician claims for polypectomy from the Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ) database. We evaluated the accuracy of the RAMQ data against information in the endoscopy reports.
RESULTS: We collected data on 689 patients who underwent colonoscopy during the study period. The sensitivity of physician claims for polypectomy in the administrative database was 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78.6%-89.4%), the specificity was 99.0% (95% CI 97.5%-99.6%), concordance was 95.1% (95% CI 93.1%-96.5%), and the kappa value was 0.87 (95% CI 0.83-0.91).
INTERPRETATION: Despite providing a reasonably accurate estimate of the frequency of polypectomy, physician claims underestimated the number of procedures performed by more than 15%. Such differences could affect conclusions regarding quality assurance if used to evaluate population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer. Even when a high level of accuracy is anticipated, validating physician claims data from administrative databases is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21670107      PMCID: PMC3153545          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.100897

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  24 in total

1.  Using medical services claims to assess injuries in the elderly: sensitivity of diagnostic and procedure codes for injury ascertainment.

Authors:  R Tamblyn; T Reid; N Mayo; P McLeod; M Churchill-Smith
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Validity of procedure codes in International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Gerry A Parsons; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Agreement between self-reported early cancer detection practices and medical audits among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white health plan members in northern California.

Authors:  R A Hiatt; E J Pérez-Stable; C Quesenberry; F Sabogal; R Otero-Sabogal; S J McPhee
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.018

4.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Accuracy of coding in Medicare part B claims. Cataract as a case study.

Authors:  J C Javitt; A M McBean; S S Sastry; F DiPaolo
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1993-05

6.  Measuring antibiotic prescribing practices among ambulatory physicians: accuracy of administrative claims data.

Authors:  J H Maselli; R Gonzales
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures.

Authors:  N P Gordon; R A Hiatt; D I Lampert
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-04-07       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Use of emergency department chief complaint and diagnostic codes for identifying respiratory illness in a pediatric population.

Authors:  Allison J Beitel; Karen L Olson; Ben Y Reis; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 1.454

9.  A population-based estimate of the extent of colorectal cancer screening in Ontario.

Authors:  Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Christopher Vinden; Cindy Li; Jingsong He; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  13 in total

1.  Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Danielle La Selva; Jae-Myung Cha; Michael Gluck; Andrew Ross; Michael Chiorean; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Rinku Sutradhar; Ning Liu; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-08-13

3.  Quantifying limitations in chemotherapy data in administrative health databases: implications for measuring the quality of colorectal cancer care.

Authors:  Robin Urquhart; Daniel Rayson; Geoffrey A Porter; Eva Grunfeld
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2011-08

4.  Different screening definitions have little impact on polypectomy rate estimates.

Authors:  Mengzhu Jiang; Maida J Sewitch; Lawrence Joseph; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.522

5.  Rate of serious complications of colonoscopy in Quebec.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Mengzhu Jiang; Lawrence Joseph; Alan N Barkun; Alain Bitton
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Screening polypectomy rates below quality benchmarks: a prospective study.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Mengzhu Jiang; Mélanie Fon Sing; Alan Barkun; Lawrence Joseph
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Developing a case definition for type 1 diabetes mellitus in a primary care electronic medical record database: an exploratory study.

Authors:  B Cord Lethebe; Tyler Williamson; Stephanie Garies; Kerry McBrien; Charles Leduc; Sonia Butalia; Boglarka Soos; Marta Shaw; Neil Drummond
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2019-05-06

8.  Using appendiceal perforation rates to measure impact of a disaster on healthcare system effectiveness.

Authors:  Dominic Mack; George Staben Rust; Peter Baltrus; Barbara Moore; Charles Sow; Vijaykumar Patel; Dwayne Thomas
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 0.954

Review 9.  Interval colorectal cancers: what and why.

Authors:  Chantal M C le Clercq; Silvia Sanduleanu
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2014-03

10.  Validation of administrative data sources for endoscopy utilization in colorectal cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Xue Li; Robert Hilsden; Shakhawat Hossain; John Fleming; Marcy Winget
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.