A Koetsier1, N Peek, E de Jonge, D Dongelmans, G van Berkel, N de Keizer. 1. Antonie Koetsier, MSc Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, Room J1b-115-2, P.O. Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam, The Netherlands, E-mail: a.koetsier@amc.uva.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Errors in the registration or extraction of patient outcome data, such as in-hospital mortality, may lower the reliability of the quality indicator that uses this (partly) incorrect data. Our aim was to measure the reliability of in-hospital mortality registration in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry. METHODS: We linked data of the NICE registry with an insurance claims database, resulting in a list of discrepancies in in-hospital mortality. Eleven Intensive Care Units (ICUs) were visited where local data sources were investigated to find the true in-hospital mortality status of the discrepancies and to identify the causes of the data errors in the NICE registry. Original and corrected Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) were calculated to determine if conclusions about quality of care changed compared to the national benchmark. RESULTS: In eleven ICUs, 23,855 records with 460 discrepancies were identified of which 255 discrepancies (1.1% of all linked records) were due to incorrect in-hospital mortality registration in the NICE registry. Two programming errors in computer software of six ICUs caused 78% of errors, the remainder was caused by manual transcription errors and failure to record patient outcomes. For one ICU the performance became concordant with the national benchmark after correction, instead of being better. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of in-hospital mortality registration in the NICE registry was good. This was reflected by the low number of data errors and by the fact that conclusions about the quality of care were only affected for one ICU due to systematic data errors. We recommend that registries frequently verify the software used in the registration process, and compare mortality data with an external source to assure consistent quality of data.
OBJECTIVES: Errors in the registration or extraction of patient outcome data, such as in-hospital mortality, may lower the reliability of the quality indicator that uses this (partly) incorrect data. Our aim was to measure the reliability of in-hospital mortality registration in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry. METHODS: We linked data of the NICE registry with an insurance claims database, resulting in a list of discrepancies in in-hospital mortality. Eleven Intensive Care Units (ICUs) were visited where local data sources were investigated to find the true in-hospital mortality status of the discrepancies and to identify the causes of the data errors in the NICE registry. Original and corrected Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs) were calculated to determine if conclusions about quality of care changed compared to the national benchmark. RESULTS: In eleven ICUs, 23,855 records with 460 discrepancies were identified of which 255 discrepancies (1.1% of all linked records) were due to incorrect in-hospital mortality registration in the NICE registry. Two programming errors in computer software of six ICUs caused 78% of errors, the remainder was caused by manual transcription errors and failure to record patient outcomes. For one ICU the performance became concordant with the national benchmark after correction, instead of being better. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of in-hospital mortality registration in the NICE registry was good. This was reflected by the low number of data errors and by the fact that conclusions about the quality of care were only affected for one ICU due to systematic data errors. We recommend that registries frequently verify the software used in the registration process, and compare mortality data with an external source to assure consistent quality of data.
Authors: Monique M E M Bos; Ilona W M Verburg; Ineke Dumaij; Jacqueline Stouthard; Johannes W R Nortier; Dick Richel; Eric P A van der Zwan; Nicolette F de Keizer; Evert de Jonge Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Lenneke E M Haas; Attila Karakus; Rebecca Holman; Sezgin Cihangir; Auke C Reidinga; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Nelleke van Sluisveld; Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez; Nicolette de Keizer; Rebecca Holman; Gert Wester; Hub Wollersheim; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Marieke Zegers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Abraham Schoe; Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez; Nicolette de Keizer; Jaap T van Dissel; Evert de Jonge Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Marie-José Roos-Blom; Wouter T Gude; Evert de Jonge; Jan Jaap Spijkstra; Sabine N van der Veer; Niels Peek; Dave A Dongelmans; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Vera A de Vries; Marcella C A Müller; M Sesmu Arbous; Bart J Biemond; Nicole M A Blijlevens; Nuray Kusadasi; Lambert R F Span; Alexander P J Vlaar; David J van Westerloo; Hanneke C Kluin-Nelemans; Walter M van den Bergh Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.598