M N Sarkies1, K-A Bowles2, E H Skinner3, D Mitchell4, R Haas2, M Ho5, K Salter5, K May5, D Markham5, L O'Brien6, S Plumb7, T P Haines2. 1. Monash Health, Allied Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Monash Health, Allied Health Research Unit , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Monash Health, Allied Health Research Unit , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Monash University , Physiotherapy Department, Allied Health Research Unit, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Monash University, Allied Health Research Unit , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Western Health, Allied Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Monash Health, Allied Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Monash University , Physiotherapy Department, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Monash Health, Allied Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 6. Monash Health, Allied Health Research Unit , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ; Monash University , Occupational Therapy Department, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 7. Melbourne Health, Allied Health , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital length of stay and discharge destination are important outcome measures in evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of health services. Although hospital administrative data are readily used as a data collection source in health services research, no research has assessed this data collection method against other commonly used methods. OBJECTIVE: Determine if administrative data from electronic patient management programs are an effective data collection method for key hospital outcome measures when compared with alternative hospital data collection methods. METHOD: Prospective observational study comparing the completeness of data capture and level of agreement between three data collection methods; manual data collection from ward-based sources, administrative data from an electronic patient management program (i.PM), and inpatient medical record review (gold standard) for hospital length of stay and discharge destination. RESULTS: Manual data collection from ward-based sources captured only 376 (69%) of the 542 inpatient episodes captured from the hospital administrative electronic patient management program. Administrative data from the electronic patient management program had the highest levels of agreement with inpatient medical record review for both length of stay (93.4%) and discharge destination (91%) data. CONCLUSION: This is the first paper to demonstrate differences between data collection methods for hospital length of stay and discharge destination. Administrative data from an electronic patient management program showed the highest level of completeness of capture and level of agreement with the gold standard of inpatient medical record review for both length of stay and discharge destination, and therefore may be an acceptable data collection method for these measures.
BACKGROUND: Hospital length of stay and discharge destination are important outcome measures in evaluating effectiveness and efficiency of health services. Although hospital administrative data are readily used as a data collection source in health services research, no research has assessed this data collection method against other commonly used methods. OBJECTIVE: Determine if administrative data from electronic patient management programs are an effective data collection method for key hospital outcome measures when compared with alternative hospital data collection methods. METHOD: Prospective observational study comparing the completeness of data capture and level of agreement between three data collection methods; manual data collection from ward-based sources, administrative data from an electronic patient management program (i.PM), and inpatient medical record review (gold standard) for hospital length of stay and discharge destination. RESULTS: Manual data collection from ward-based sources captured only 376 (69%) of the 542 inpatient episodes captured from the hospital administrative electronic patient management program. Administrative data from the electronic patient management program had the highest levels of agreement with inpatient medical record review for both length of stay (93.4%) and discharge destination (91%) data. CONCLUSION: This is the first paper to demonstrate differences between data collection methods for hospital length of stay and discharge destination. Administrative data from an electronic patient management program showed the highest level of completeness of capture and level of agreement with the gold standard of inpatient medical record review for both length of stay and discharge destination, and therefore may be an acceptable data collection method for these measures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data collection; discharge destination; health services research; length of stay; research methodology
Authors: Anne-Marie Hill; Tammy Hoffmann; Keith Hill; David Oliver; Christopher Beer; Steven McPhail; Sandra Brauer; Terry P Haines Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael F Bullano; Siddhesh Kamat; Vincent J Willey; Suna Barlas; Douglas J Watson; Susan K Brenneman Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Terry P Haines; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Deb Mitchell; Lisa O'Brien; Donna Markham; Samantha Plumb; Kerry May; Kathleen Philip; Romi Haas; Mitchell N Sarkies; Marcelle Ghaly; Melina Shackell; Timothy Chiu; Steven McPhail; Fiona McDermott; Elizabeth H Skinner Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Mitchell N Sarkies; Elizabeth H Skinner; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Meg E Morris; Cylie Williams; Lisa O'Brien; Anne Bardoel; Jenny Martin; Anne E Holland; Leeanne Carey; Jennifer White; Terry P Haines Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Christian Friedemann Luz; Matthijs S Berends; Jan-Willem H Dik; Mariëtte Lokate; Céline Pulcini; Corinna Glasner; Bhanu Sinha Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-05-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Francesco D'Aloisio; Pierpaolo Vittorini; Anna Rita Giuliani; Maria Scatigna; Jacopo Del Papa; Mario Muselli; Giorgio Baccari; Leila Fabiani Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-06-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mitchell N Sarkies; Jennifer White; Meg E Morris; Nicholas F Taylor; Cylie Williams; Lisa O'Brien; Jenny Martin; Anne Bardoel; Anne E Holland; Leeanne Carey; Elizabeth H Skinner; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Kellie Grant; Kathleen Philip; Terry P Haines Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 7.327