Literature DB >> 30104417

Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study.

Jill Tinmouth1, Rinku Sutradhar2, Ning Liu2, Nancy N Baxter2, Lawrence Paszat2, Linda Rabeneck2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is used widely, but its quality is highly variable, which may adversely affect patients. Research and quality-improvement initiatives in a variety of jurisdictions have sought to address this issue, often supported by the use of health administrative data. As these data are generally not collected for these purposes, it is critical to measure their validity before use. The aim of this study was to validate health administrative data definitions for 5 key colonoscopy elements through comparison to the clinical record.
METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we randomly sampled 1968 colonoscopy and noncolonoscopy procedures performed at 23 hospitals and 5 nonhospital endoscopy clinics between April 2008 and March 2009 in Ontario. We compared definitions for 5 key colonoscopy elements (colonoscopy case, colonoscopy setting, colonoscopy completeness, anesthesiologist assistance and polypectomy) derived from the health administrative data to the clinical record. We calculated weighted and unweighted sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value, adjusted for clustering of patients within physicians, for each definition relative to the reference standard.
RESULTS: We abstracted 1845 records; in 1282 cases (69.5%), colonoscopy was intended or performed. The weighted sensitivity and specificity of colonoscopy case, nonhospital colonoscopy setting and anesthesiologist assistance exceeded 95%. The weighted sensitivity for colonoscopy completeness and polypectomy exceeded 95%, but specificity was less than 90%.
INTERPRETATION: Ontario health administrative data definitions for 5 key colonoscopy data elements performed well, with sensitivity and specificity values acceptable for use in research and quality-improvement initiatives. In jurisdictions where health administrative data are similarly used for research or quality improvement, similar studies could be considered. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 30104417      PMCID: PMC6182115          DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20180013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ Open        ISSN: 2291-0026


  30 in total

1.  Using administrative data to measure ambulatory mental health service provision in primary care.

Authors:  Leah S Steele; Richard H Glazier; Elizabeth Lin; Michael Evans
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Temporal trends in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates in 50- to 74-year-old persons: a population-based study.

Authors:  Sanjay K Murthy; Eric I Benchimol; Jill Tinmouth; Paul D James; Robin Ducharme; Alaa Rostom; Catherine Dubé
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Comparison and validity of procedures coded With ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CA/CCI.

Authors:  Carolyn De Coster; Bing Li; Hude Quan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Accuracy of administrative claims data for polypectomy.

Authors:  Jonathan M Wyse; Lawrence Joseph; Alan N Barkun; Maida J Sewitch
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-06-13       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Zhongliang Chen; Deanna M Rothwell; Chris Vinden; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas.

Authors:  Susan G Coe; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Nancy N Baxter; Rinku Sutradhar; Shawn S Forbes; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-09-18       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Development and validation of an algorithm for classifying colonoscopy indication.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Lee; Christopher D Jensen; Alexander Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Theodore R Levin; Wei K Zhao; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Regional variation in anesthesia assistance during outpatient colonoscopy is not associated with differences in polyp detection or complication rates.

Authors:  Jason A Dominitz; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Pamela Green; William I Kreuter; Cynthia W Ko
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  A population-based analysis of outpatient colonoscopy in adults assisted by an anesthesiologist.

Authors:  Othman Alharbi; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Rinku Sutradhar; Lingsong Yun; Christopher M Vinden; Jill Tinmouth
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 7.892

View more
  2 in total

1.  Uptake and Short-term Outcomes of High-risk Screening Colonoscopy Billing Codes: A Population-based Study Among Young Adults.

Authors:  Lawrence Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Jin Luo; Jill Tinmouth; Linda Rabeneck; Nancy N Baxter
Journal:  J Can Assoc Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-06-10

2.  Decreased Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Incidence-Based Mortality in the Screening-Age Population of Ontario.

Authors:  Lawrence F Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Elyse Corn; Jill Tinmouth; Nancy N Baxter; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  J Can Assoc Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-10-15
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.