Literature DB >> 28484832

Accuracy of routinely collected comorbidity data in patients undergoing colectomy: a retrospective study.

Shahin Hajibandeh1,2, Shahab Hajibandeh3,4, Roger Deering1, Dearbhla McEleney1, John Guirguis1, Sarah Dix1, Abdelhakem Sreh1, Afsana Kausar1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This paper aimed to determine the baseline accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of routinely collected comorbidity data in patients undergoing any types of colectomy.
METHODS: All patients aged >18 who underwent right hemicolectomy, left hemicolectomy, sigmoid colectomy, subtotal colectomy, or total colectomy between 1 January 2015 and 1 November 2016 were identified. The following comorbidities were considered: hypertension, ischemic heart disease (IHD), diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and hypercholesterolemia. The comorbidity data from clinical notes were compared with corresponding data in hospital episode statistics (HES) database in order to calculate accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of HES codes for comorbidities. In order to assess the agreement between clinical notes and HES data, we also calculated Cohen's kappa index value as a more robust measure of agreement.
RESULTS: Overall, 267 patients comprising 2136 comorbidity codes were included. Overall, HES codes for comorbidities in patients undergoing colectomy had substandard accuracy 94% (kappa 0.542), sensitivity (39%), and NPV (89%). The HES codes were 100% specific with PPV of 100%. The results were consistent when individual comorbidities were analyzed separately.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that HES comorbidity codes in patients undergoing colectomy are specific with good positive predictive value; however, they have substandard accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value. Better documentation of comorbidities in admission clerking proforma may help to improve the quality of source documents for coders, which in turn may improve the accuracy of coding.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; Coding; Colectomy; Comorbidity; General surgery; Hospital episode statistics

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28484832     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2830-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  9 in total

1.  Do we do what they say we do? coding errors in urology.

Authors:  A Ballaro; S Oliver; M Emberton
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  The 'top 10' urological procedures: a study of hospital episodes statistics 1998-99.

Authors:  F Lee; H R H Patel; M Emberton
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  Accuracy of clinical coding from 1210 appendicectomies in a British district general hospital.

Authors:  Aneel Bhangu; Dmitri Nepogodiev; Caroline Taylor; Natalie Durkin; Rajan Patel
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 6.071

4.  Monitoring the use and outcomes of new devices and procedures: how does coding affect what Hospital Episode Statistics contribute? Lessons from 12 emerging procedures 2006-10.

Authors:  Hannah Patrick; Andrew Sims; Julie Burn; Derek Bousfield; Elaine Colechin; Christopher Reay; Neil Alderson; Stephen Goode; David Cunningham; Bruce Campbell
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 2.341

5.  Improving the accuracy of HES comorbidity codes by better documentation in surgical admission proforma.

Authors:  Ahmad Navid; Shahin Hajibandeh; Jayarama Mohan; Shahab Hajibandeh
Journal:  Br J Hosp Med (Lond)       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.825

6.  Descriptive study comparing routine hospital administrative data with the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland's National Vascular Database.

Authors:  P Aylin; T Lees; S Baker; D Prytherch; S Ashley
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 7.069

7.  Usefulness of a short-term register for health technology assessment where the evidence base is poor.

Authors:  Hannah Patrick; Sally Gallaugher; Carolyn Czoski-Murray; Robert Wheeler; Marc Chattle; Mirella Marlow; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Bruce Campbell
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 8.  Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy.

Authors:  E M Burns; E Rigby; R Mamidanna; A Bottle; P Aylin; P Ziprin; O D Faiz
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 2.341

9.  Prospective audit of discharge summary errors.

Authors:  E M Macaulay; G G Cooper; J Engeset; A R Naylor
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 6.939

  9 in total
  2 in total

1.  COVID-RDNet: A novel coronavirus pneumonia classification model using the mixed dataset by CT and X-rays images.

Authors:  Lingling Fang; Xin Wang
Journal:  Biocybern Biomed Eng       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 5.687

2.  The expanding burden of idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

Authors:  Susan P Mollan; Magda Aguiar; Felicity Evison; Emma Frew; Alexandra J Sinclair
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.775

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.