Beth Hume1, Barbara Gabella2, Jeanne Hathaway1, Scott Proescholdbell3, Cristy Sneddon4, Elizabeth Brutsch4, Riley Hedin4, Christopher J Drucker4. 1. 1 Department of Public Health, Injury Surveillance Program, Office of Statistics and Evaluation, Boston, MA, USA. 2. 2 Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, USA. 3. 3 Division of Public Health, Injury and Violence Prevention Branch, Chronic Disease and Injury Section, Raleigh, NC, USA. 4. 4 Violence and Injury Prevention Program, Utah Department of Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In 2012, a consensus document was developed on drug overdose poisoning definitions. We took the opportunity to apply these new definitions to health care administrative data in 4 states. Our objective was to calculate and compare drug (particularly opioid) poisoning rates in these 4 states for 4 selected Injury Surveillance Workgroup 7 (ISW7) drug poisoning indicators, using 2 ISW7 surveillance definitions, Option A and Option B. We also identified factors related to the health care administrative data used by each state that might contribute to poisoning rate variations. METHODS: We used state-level hospital and emergency department (ED) discharge data to calculate age-adjusted rates for 4 drug poisoning indicators (acute drug poisonings, acute opioid poisonings, acute opioid analgesic poisonings, and acute or chronic opioid poisonings) using just the principal diagnosis or first-listed external cause-of-injury fields (Option A) or using all diagnosis or external cause-of-injury fields (Option B). We also calculated the high-to-low poisoning rate ratios to measure rate variations. RESULTS: The average poisoning rates per 100 000 population for the 4 ISW7 poisoning indicators ranged from 11.2 to 216.4 (ED) and from 14.2 to 212.8 (hospital). For each indicator, ED rates were usually higher than were hospital rates. High-to-low rate ratios between states were lowest for the acute drug poisoning indicator (range, 1.5-1.6). Factors potentially contributing to rate variations included administrative data structure, accessibility, and submission regulations. CONCLUSIONS: The ISW7 Option B surveillance definition is needed to fully capture the state burden of opioid poisonings. Efforts to control for factors related to administrative data, standardize data sources on a national level, and improve data source accessibility for state health departments would improve the accuracy of drug poisoning surveillance.
OBJECTIVES: In 2012, a consensus document was developed on drug overdose poisoning definitions. We took the opportunity to apply these new definitions to health care administrative data in 4 states. Our objective was to calculate and compare drug (particularly opioid) poisoning rates in these 4 states for 4 selected Injury Surveillance Workgroup 7 (ISW7) drug poisoning indicators, using 2 ISW7 surveillance definitions, Option A and Option B. We also identified factors related to the health care administrative data used by each state that might contribute to poisoning rate variations. METHODS: We used state-level hospital and emergency department (ED) discharge data to calculate age-adjusted rates for 4 drug poisoning indicators (acute drug poisonings, acute opioid poisonings, acute opioid analgesic poisonings, and acute or chronic opioid poisonings) using just the principal diagnosis or first-listed external cause-of-injury fields (Option A) or using all diagnosis or external cause-of-injury fields (Option B). We also calculated the high-to-low poisoning rate ratios to measure rate variations. RESULTS: The average poisoning rates per 100 000 population for the 4 ISW7 poisoning indicators ranged from 11.2 to 216.4 (ED) and from 14.2 to 212.8 (hospital). For each indicator, ED rates were usually higher than were hospital rates. High-to-low rate ratios between states were lowest for the acute drug poisoning indicator (range, 1.5-1.6). Factors potentially contributing to rate variations included administrative data structure, accessibility, and submission regulations. CONCLUSIONS: The ISW7 Option B surveillance definition is needed to fully capture the state burden of opioid poisonings. Efforts to control for factors related to administrative data, standardize data sources on a national level, and improve data source accessibility for state health departments would improve the accuracy of drug poisoning surveillance.
Entities:
Keywords:
ISW7; administrative health care data; opioid overdose
Authors: Michael A Yokell; M Kit Delgado; Nickolas D Zaller; N Ewen Wang; Samuel K McGowan; Traci Craig Green Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Allison Tadros; Shelley M Layman; Stephen M Davis; Danielle M Davidov; Scott Cimino Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Jeffrey H Coben; Stephen M Davis; Paul M Furbee; Rosanna D Sikora; Roger D Tillotson; Robert M Bossarte Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: George Sam Wang; Christine Buttorff; Asa Wilks; Daniel Schwam; Gregory J Tung; Shireen Banerji; Richard C Dart; Rosalie Liccardo Pacula Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Mohammad Alrawashdeh; Michael Klompas; Simeon Kimmel; Marc R Larochelle; Runa H Gokhale; Raymund B Dantes; Brooke Hoots; Kelly M Hatfield; Sujan C Reddy; Anthony E Fiore; Edward J Septimus; Sameer S Kadri; Russell Poland; Kenneth Sands; Chanu Rhee Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 9.296