Hillary J Mull1, Ann M Borzecki2, Susan Loveland3, Kathleen Hickson4, Qi Chen3, Sally MacDonald5, Marlena H Shin3, Marisa Cevasco6, Kamal M F Itani7, Amy K Rosen8. 1. Center for Organization, Leadership, and Management Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 S Huntington Avenue (152M), Boston, MA 02130, USA; Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: hillary.mull@va.gov. 2. Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, MA, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Center for Organization, Leadership, and Management Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 S Huntington Avenue (152M), Boston, MA 02130, USA. 4. Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, MA, USA. 6. VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Center for Organization, Leadership, and Management Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 S Huntington Avenue (152M), Boston, MA 02130, USA; Department of Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) use administrative data to screen for select adverse events (AEs). In this study, VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) chart review data were used as the gold standard to measure the criterion validity of 5 surgical PSIs. Independent chart review was also used to determine reasons for PSI errors. METHODS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of PSI software version 4.1a were calculated among Veterans Health Administration hospitalizations (2003-2007) reviewed by VASQIP (n = 268,771). Nurses re-reviewed a sample of hospitalizations for which PSI and VASQIP AE detection disagreed. RESULTS: Sensitivities ranged from 31% to 68%, specificities from 99.1% to 99.8%, and positive predictive values from 31% to 72%. Reviewers found that coding errors accounted for some PSI-VASQIP disagreement; some disagreement was also the result of differences in AE definitions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the PSIs have moderate criterion validity; however, some surgical PSIs detect different AEs than VASQIP. Future research should explore using both methods to evaluate surgical quality. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) use administrative data to screen for select adverse events (AEs). In this study, VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) chart review data were used as the gold standard to measure the criterion validity of 5 surgical PSIs. Independent chart review was also used to determine reasons for PSI errors. METHODS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of PSI software version 4.1a were calculated among Veterans Health Administration hospitalizations (2003-2007) reviewed by VASQIP (n = 268,771). Nurses re-reviewed a sample of hospitalizations for which PSI and VASQIP AE detection disagreed. RESULTS: Sensitivities ranged from 31% to 68%, specificities from 99.1% to 99.8%, and positive predictive values from 31% to 72%. Reviewers found that coding errors accounted for some PSI-VASQIP disagreement; some disagreement was also the result of differences in AE definitions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the PSIs have moderate criterion validity; however, some surgical PSIs detect different AEs than VASQIP. Future research should explore using both methods to evaluate surgical quality. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Administrative data; Adverse surgical events; Patient Safety Indicators; VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program; Veterans Health Administration
Authors: L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce L Hall; Barton H Hamilton; Karen Richards; Karl Y Bilimoria; Mark E Cohen; Clifford Y Ko Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A K Jha; G J Kuperman; J M Teich; L Leape; B Shea; E Rittenberg; E Burdick; D L Seger; M Vander Vliet; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Katherine E Henderson; Angela j Recktenwald; Richard M Reichley; Thomas C Bailey; Brian M Waterman; Rebecca L Diekemper; Patricia E Storey; Belinda K Ireland; Wm Claiborne Dunagan Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2009-07
Authors: John A Morris; Ysela Carrillo; Judith M Jenkins; Philip W Smith; Sandy Bledsoe; James Pichert; Andrew White Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Laura M Enomoto; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Neil H Bhayani; Peter W Dillon; Niraj J Gusani Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-06-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Maaike S M van Mourik; Pleun Joppe van Duijn; Karel G M Moons; Marc J M Bonten; Grace M Lee Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marie-Annick Le Pogam; Catherine Quantin; Oliver Reich; Philippe Tuppin; Anne Fagot-Campagna; Fred Paccaud; Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux; Bernard Burnand Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-05-11
Authors: Linxin Li; Lucy E Binney; Samantha Carter; Sergei A Gutnikov; Sally Beebe; Karen Bowsher-Brown; Louise E Silver; Peter M Rothwell Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Hillary J Mull; Kelly L Stolzmann; Marlena H Shin; Emily Kalver; Marin L Schweizer; Westyn Branch-Elliman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-09-01