Literature DB >> 27578751

Navigating a ship with a broken compass: evaluating standard algorithms to measure patient safety.

Jennifer L Hefner1, Timothy R Huerta1,2, Ann Scheck McAlearney1,3, Barbara Barash1, Tina Latimer4, Susan D Moffatt-Bruce4,5.   

Abstract

Objective: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) software applies standardized algorithms to hospital administrative data to identify patient safety indicators (PSIs). The objective of this study was to assess the validity of PSI flags and report reasons for invalid flagging. Material and
Methods: At a 6-hospital academic medical center, a retrospective analysis was conducted of all PSIs flagged in fiscal year 2014. A multidisciplinary PSI Quality Team reviewed each flagged PSI based on quarterly reports. The positive predictive value (PPV, the percent of clinically validated cases) was calculated for 12 PSI categories. The documentation for each reversed case was reviewed to determine the reasons for PSI reversal.
Results: Of 657 PSI flags, 185 were reversed. Seven PSI categories had a PPV below 75%. Four broad categories of reasons for reversal were AHRQ algorithm limitations (38%), coding misinterpretations (45%), present upon admission (10%), and documentation insufficiency (7%). AHRQ algorithm limitations included 2 subcategories: an "incident" was inherent to the procedure, or highly likely (eg, vascular tumor bleed), or an "incident" was nonsignificant, easily controlled, and/or no intervention was needed. Discussion: These findings support previous research highlighting administrative data problems. Additionally, AHRQ algorithm limitations was an emergent category not considered in previous research. Herein we present potential solutions to address these issues. Conclusions: If, despite poor validity, US policy continues to rely on PSIs for incentive and penalty programs, improvements are needed in the quality of administrative data and the standardized PSI algorithms. These solutions require national motivation, research attention, and dissemination support.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  administrative data; patient safety indicators; quality measurement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27578751      PMCID: PMC7651941          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw126

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  20 in total

1.  Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Bing Li; L Duncan Saunders; Gerry A Parsons; Carolyn I Nilsson; Arif Alibhai; William A Ghali
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  The impact of electronic medical records data sources on an adverse drug event quality measure.

Authors:  Michael G Kahn; Daksha Ranade
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Assessment of the reproducibility of clinical coding in routinely collected hospital activity data: a study in two hospitals.

Authors:  J Dixon; C Sanderson; P Elliott; P Walls; J Jones; M Petticrew
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1998-03

4.  Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data: report from an international consortium.

Authors:  Carolyn De Coster; Hude Quan; Alan Finlayson; Min Gao; Patricia Halfon; Karin H Humphries; Helen Johansen; Lisa M Lix; Jean-Christophe Luthi; Jin Ma; Patrick S Romano; Leslie Roos; Vijaya Sundararajan; Jack V Tu; Greg Webster; William A Ghali
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-06-15       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 5.  Assessing quality using administrative data.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  The accuracy of present-on-admission reporting in administrative data.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Philip W Chu; Dennis Osmond; Andrew Bindman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Comparison of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicator Rates Among Veteran Dual Users.

Authors:  Qi Chen; Amresh Hanchate; Michael Shwartz; Ann M Borzecki; Hillary J Mull; Marlena H Shin; Amy K Rosen
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2013-08-22       Impact factor: 1.852

8.  How often are potential patient safety events present on admission?

Authors:  Robert L Houchens; Anne Elixhauser; Patrick S Romano
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2008-03

9.  Challenges and remediation for Patient Safety Indicators in the transition to ICD-10-CM.

Authors:  Andrew D Boyd; Young Min Yang; Jianrong Li; Colleen Kenost; Mike D Burton; Bryan Becker; Yves A Lussier
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 4.497

10.  Validity of AHRQ patient safety indicators derived from ICD-10 hospital discharge abstract data (chart review study).

Authors:  Hude Quan; Cathy Eastwood; Ceara Tess Cunningham; Mingfu Liu; Ward Flemons; Carolyn De Coster; William A Ghali
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  1 in total

1.  A comparison of two structured taxonomic strategies in capturing adverse events in U.S. hospitals.

Authors:  John M Austin; Erin M Kirley; Michael A Rosen; Bradford D Winters
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-11-25       Impact factor: 3.402

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.