Dataset Information

(Dis)concordance of comorbidity data and cancer status across administrative datasets, medical charts, and self-reports.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Benchmarking outcomes across settings commonly requires risk-adjustment for co-morbidities that must be derived from extant sources that were designed for other purposes. A question arises as to the extent to which differing available sources for health data will be concordant when inferring the type and severity of co-morbidities, how close are these to the "truth". We studied the level of concordance for same-patient comorbidity data extracted from administrative data (coded from International Classification of Diseases, Australian modification,10th edition [ICD-10 AM]), from the medical chart audit, and data self-reported by men with prostate cancer who had undergone a radical prostatectomy.

Methods

We included six hospitals (5 public and 1 private) contributing to the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria (PCOR-Vic) in the study. Eligible patients from the PCOR-Vic underwent a radical prostatectomy between January 2017 and April 2018.Health Information Manager's in each hospital, provided each patient's associated administrative ICD-10 AM comorbidity codes. Medical charts were reviewed to extract comorbidity data. The self-reported comorbidity questionnaire (SCQ) was distributed through PCOR-Vic to eligible men.

Results

The percentage agreement between the administrative data, medical charts and self-reports ranged from 92 to 99% in the 122 patients from the 217 eligible participants who responded to the questionnaire. The presence of comorbidities showed a poor level of agreement between data sources.

Conclusion

Relying on a single data source to generate comorbidity indices for risk-modelling purposes may fail to capture the reality of a patient's disease profile. There does not appear to be a 'gold-standard' data source for the collection of data on comorbidities.

SUBMITTER: Sheriffdeen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7488579 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

(Dis)concordance of comorbidity data and cancer status across administrative datasets, medical charts, and self-reports.

Sheriffdeen A A Millar J L JL Martin C C Evans M M Tikellis G G Evans S M SM

BMC health services research 20200911 1

<h4>Background</h4>Benchmarking outcomes across settings commonly requires risk-adjustment for co-morbidities that must be derived from extant sources that were designed for other purposes. A question arises as to the extent to which differing available sources for health data will be concordant when inferring the type and severity of co-morbidities, how close are these to the "truth". We studied the level of concordance for same-patient comorbidity data extracted from administrative data (coded ...[more]

PMID: 32917193

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Administrative data are a valuable source of estimates of diabetes prevalence for groups such as coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. The primary aim of this study was to measure concordance between medical records and linked administrative health data for recording diabetes in CHD patients, and to assess temporal differences in concordance. Secondary aims were to determine the optimal lookback period for identifying diabetes in this patient group, whether concordance differed for Indigenous people, and to identify predictors of false positives and negatives in administrative data. METHODS: A population representative sample of 3943 CHD patients hospitalized in Western Australia in 1998 and 2002-04 were selected, and designated according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) version in use at the time (ICD-9 and ICD-10 respectively). Crude prevalence and concordance were compared for the two samples. Concordance measures were estimated from administrative data comparing diabetes status recorded on the selected CHD admission ('index admission') and on any hospitalization in the previous 1, 2, 5, 10 or 15 years, against hospital medical records. Potential modifiers of agreement were determined using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Identification of diabetes on the index CHD admission was underestimated more in the ICD-10 than ICD-9 sample (sensitivity 81.5% versus 91.1%, underestimation 15.1% versus 4.4% respectively). Sensitivity increased to 89.6% in the ICD-10 period using at least 10 years of hospitalization history. Sensitivity was higher and specificity lower in Indigenous patients, and followed a similar pattern of improving concordance with increasing lookback period. Characteristics associated with false negatives for diabetes on the index CHD hospital admission were elective admission, in-hospital death, principal diagnosis, and in the ICD-10 period only, fewer recorded comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of identifying diabetes status in CHD patients is improved in linked administrative health data by using at least 10 years of hospitalization history. Use of this method would reduce bias when measuring temporal trends in diabetes prevalence in this patient group. Concordance measures are as reliable in Indigenous as non-Indigenous patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the increasing use of medical records to measure quality of care, studies have shown that their validity is suboptimal. The objective of this study is to assess the concordance of cardiovascular care processes evaluated through medical record review and patient self-administered questionnaires (SAQs) using ten quality indicators (TRANSIT indicators). These indicators were developed as part of a participatory research program (TRANSIT study) dedicated to TRANSforming InTerprofessional clinical practices to improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in primary care. METHODS:For every patient participating in the TRANSIT study, the compliance to each indicator (individual scores) as well as the mean compliance to all indicators of a category (subscale scores) and to the complete set of ten indicators (overall scale score) were established. Concordance between results obtained using medical records and patient SAQs was assessed by prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) coefficients as well as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were used to identify patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with agreement between the two data sources. RESULTS:The TRANSIT study was conducted in a primary care setting among patients (n = 759) with multimorbidity, at moderate (16%) and high risk (83%) of cardiovascular diseases. Quality of care, as measured by the TRANSIT indicators, varied substantially between medical records and patient SAQ. Concordance between the two data sources, as measured by ICCs (95% CI), was poor for the subscale (0.18 [0.08-0.27] to 0.46 [0.40-0.52]) and overall (0.46 [0.40-0.53]) compliance scale scores. GLMM showed that agreement was not affected by patients' characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:In quality improvement strategies, researchers must acknowledge that care processes may not be consistently recorded in medical records. They must also be aware that the evaluation of the quality of care may vary depending on the source of information, the clinician responsible of documenting the interventions, and the domain of care.

Dataset Information

(Dis)concordance of comorbidity data and cancer status across administrative datasets, medical charts, and self-reports.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

(Dis)concordance of comorbidity data and cancer status across administrative datasets, medical charts, and self-reports.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets