Daniel S Tawfik1,2, Jeffrey B Gould3,4, Jochen Profit3,4. 1. Departments of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Pediatrics and dtawfik@stanford.edu. 2. Health Research and Policy, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California; and. 3. Divisions of Perinatal Epidemiology and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Neonatology and. 4. California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative, Palo Alto, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Administrative databases may allow true population-based studies and quality improvement endeavors, but the accuracy of billing codes for capturing key risk factors and outcomes needs to be assessed. We sought to describe the performance of a statewide administrative database and the clinical database from the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative (CPQCC). METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study linked key perinatal risk factors and outcomes from the 133-unit CPQCC database to relevant billing codes from administrative maternal and newborn inpatient discharge records, for 50 631 infants born from 2006 to 2012. Using the CPQCC record as the gold standard, we calculated the positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Matthews correlation coefficient for each item, then evaluated comparative performance across units. RESULTS: The Matthews correlation coefficient was highest (>0.7; strong positive correlation) for multiple delivery, Cesarean delivery, very low birth weight, maternal hypertension, maternal diabetes, patent ductus arteriosus, in-hospital death, patent ductus arteriosus and retinopathy of prematurity surgeries, extracorporeal life support, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Maternal chorioamnionitis, fetal distress, retinopathy of prematurity staging, chronic lung disease, and pneumothorax were the least reliably coded. Maternal factors and delivery details were more reliably coded in the maternal inpatient record than the newborn inpatient record. CONCLUSIONS: Several important perinatal risk factors and outcomes are highly congruent between these administrative and clinical databases. Several subjective risk factors and outcomes are appropriate targets for data improvement initiatives. The ability for timely extraction of administrative inpatient data will be key to their usefulness in quality metrics.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Administrative databases may allow true population-based studies and quality improvement endeavors, but the accuracy of billing codes for capturing key risk factors and outcomes needs to be assessed. We sought to describe the performance of a statewide administrative database and the clinical database from the California Perinatal Quality Care Collaborative (CPQCC). METHODS: This population-based retrospective cohort study linked key perinatal risk factors and outcomes from the 133-unit CPQCC database to relevant billing codes from administrative maternal and newborn inpatient discharge records, for 50 631 infants born from 2006 to 2012. Using the CPQCC record as the gold standard, we calculated the positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Matthews correlation coefficient for each item, then evaluated comparative performance across units. RESULTS: The Matthews correlation coefficient was highest (>0.7; strong positive correlation) for multiple delivery, Cesarean delivery, very low birth weight, maternal hypertension, maternal diabetes, patent ductus arteriosus, in-hospital death, patent ductus arteriosus and retinopathy of prematurity surgeries, extracorporeal life support, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Maternal chorioamnionitis, fetal distress, retinopathy of prematurity staging, chronic lung disease, and pneumothorax were the least reliably coded. Maternal factors and delivery details were more reliably coded in the maternal inpatient record than the newborn inpatient record. CONCLUSIONS: Several important perinatal risk factors and outcomes are highly congruent between these administrative and clinical databases. Several subjective risk factors and outcomes are appropriate targets for data improvement initiatives. The ability for timely extraction of administrative inpatient data will be key to their usefulness in quality metrics.
Authors: Megan A Bohensky; Damien Jolley; David V Pilcher; Vijaya Sundararajan; Sue Evans; Caroline A Brand Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Elizabeth A Howell; Teresa Janevic; Paul L Hebert; Natalia N Egorova; Amy Balbierz; Jennifer Zeitlin Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Jane B Ford; Christine L Roberts; Charles S Algert; Jennifer R Bowen; Barbara Bajuk; David J Henderson-Smart Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Eric I Benchimol; Liam Smeeth; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Erik von Elm; Sinéad M Langan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Charlan D Kroelinger; Marion E Rice; Ekwutosi M Okoroh; Carla L DeSisto; Wanda D Barfield Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Gretchen Bandoli; Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Benjamin Schumacher; Rebecca J Baer; Jennifer N Felder; Jonathan D Fuchs; Scott P Oltman; Martina A Steurer; Carla Marienfeld Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Elizabeth A Jasper; Hyunkeun Cho; Patrick J Breheny; Wei Bao; John M Dagle; Kelli K Ryckman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Drayton C Harvey; Rebecca J Baer; Gretchen Bandoli; Christina D Chambers; Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; S Ram Kumar Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Hen Y Sela; Vered Seri; Frederic S Zimmerman; Andrea Cortegiani; Philip D Levin; Arnon Smueloff; Sharon Einav Journal: Microorganisms Date: 2021-12-31