M McKee1, P James. 1. Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As part of the process of developing an international comparative study of the outcome of hospital care it has been necessary to understand what data on hospital activity are available and how they compare with those in other countries. The authors describe the administrative data collected in British National Health Service Hospitals, with emphasis on how they differ from that available in the United States. METHODS: A description of the content of administrative data and a selective review of published literature related to their uses. RESULTS: Administrative data in the United Kingdom resembles that available in the United States, but it also has some important differences. These include a different system of procedure classification, the use of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (rather than International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification), and the use of a different denominator ("finished consultant episodes," rather than admission spells). There also are important differences in the completeness and precision of the data that are collected. CONCLUSIONS: British administrative data can be used to describe patterns of care and have the potential to identify possible differences in outcome that can then be subjected to more detailed scrutiny. They are substantially less detailed than US data but are also somewhat less costly to collect.
OBJECTIVES: As part of the process of developing an international comparative study of the outcome of hospital care it has been necessary to understand what data on hospital activity are available and how they compare with those in other countries. The authors describe the administrative data collected in British National Health Service Hospitals, with emphasis on how they differ from that available in the United States. METHODS: A description of the content of administrative data and a selective review of published literature related to their uses. RESULTS: Administrative data in the United Kingdom resembles that available in the United States, but it also has some important differences. These include a different system of procedure classification, the use of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (rather than International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification), and the use of a different denominator ("finished consultant episodes," rather than admission spells). There also are important differences in the completeness and precision of the data that are collected. CONCLUSIONS: British administrative data can be used to describe patterns of care and have the potential to identify possible differences in outcome that can then be subjected to more detailed scrutiny. They are substantially less detailed than US data but are also somewhat less costly to collect.