Literature DB >> 7591780

Identifying complications and low provider adherence to normative practices using administrative data.

D H Kuykendall1, C M Ashton, M L Johnson, J M Geraci.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether unexpected length of stay (LOS) could be used as an indicator to identify hospital patients who experienced complications or whose care exhibited low adherence to normative practices. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
SETTING: We analyzed 1,477 cases admitted for one of three medical conditions. All cases were discharged from one of nine participating Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals from October 1987 through September 1989. Analyses used administrative data and information abstracted through chart reviews that included severity of illness indicators, complications, and explicit process of care criteria reflecting adherence to normative practices. STUDY
DESIGN: We developed separate multiple linear regression models for each disease using LOS as the dependent measure and variables that could be assumed present at the time of admission as explanatory variables. Unexpectedly long LOS (i.e., discharges with high residuals) was used to target complications and unexpectedly short LOS was used to target cases whose care might have exhibited low adherence to normative practices. Information gleaned from chart reviews served as the gold standard for determining actual complications and low adherence. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Analyses of administrative data showed that unexpectedly long LOS identified complications with sensitivities ranging from 40 through 62 percent across the three conditions. Positive predictive values all were at greater than chance levels (p < .05). This represented substantial improvement over identification of complications using ICD-9-CM codes contained in the administrative database where sensitivities were from 26 through 39 percent. Unexpectedly short LOS identified low provider adherence with sensitivities ranging from 33 through 45 percent with positive predictive values all above chance levels (p < .05). The addition to the LOS models of chart-based severity of illness information helped explain LOS, but failed to facilitate identification of complications or low adherence beyond what was accomplished using administrative data.
CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data can be used to target cases when seeking to identify complications or low provider adherence to normative practices. Targeting can be accomplished through the creation of indirect measures based on unexpected LOS. Future efforts should be devoted to validating unexpected LOS as a hospital-level quality indicator. RELEVANCE/IMPACT: Scrutiny of unexpected LOS holds promise for enhancing the usefulness of administrative data as a resource for quality initiatives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7591780      PMCID: PMC1070074     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  23 in total

Review 1.  Using administrative diagnostic data to assess the quality of hospital care. Pitfalls and potential of ICD-9-CM.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 2.188

2.  APACHE-L: a new severity of illness adjuster for inpatient medical care.

Authors:  L F McMahon; R A Hayward; A M Bernard; J S Rosevear; L A Weissfeld
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  The health care quality improvement initiative. A new approach to quality assurance in Medicare.

Authors:  S F Jencks; G R Wilensky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-08-19       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Measuring outcomes of hospital care using multiple risk-adjusted indexes.

Authors:  S DesHarnais; L F McMahon; R Wroblewski
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes.

Authors:  A R Feinstein; D V Cicchetti
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Does quality influence choice of hospital?

Authors:  H S Luft; D W Garnick; D H Mark; D J Peltzman; C S Phibbs; E Lichtenberg; S J McPhee
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system.

Authors:  W A Knaus; E A Draper; D P Wagner; J E Zimmerman
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Predicting hospital-associated mortality for Medicare patients. A method for patients with stroke, pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure.

Authors:  J Daley; S Jencks; D Draper; G Lenhart; N Thomas; J Walker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  A methodology for targeting hospital cases for quality of care record reviews.

Authors:  E L Hannan; H R Bernard; J F O'Donnell; H Kilburn
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Measuring severity of illness: six severity systems and their ability to explain cost variations.

Authors:  J W Thomas; M L Ashcraft
Journal:  Inquiry       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.730

View more
  3 in total

1.  Relationship between hospital length of stay and quality of care in patients with congestive heart failure.

Authors:  M P Kossovsky; F P Sarasin; P Chopard; M Louis-Simonet; P Sigaud; T V Perneger; J M Gaspoz
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-09

2.  Measuring surgical quality: a national clinical registry versus administrative claims data.

Authors:  Laura M Enomoto; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Neil H Bhayani; Peter W Dillon; Niraj J Gusani
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 3.452

3.  Measuring hospital quality: can medicare data substitute for all-payer data?

Authors:  Jack Needleman; Peter I Buerhaus; Soeren Mattke; Maureen Stewart; Katya Zelevinsky
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.402

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.