Using clinical variables and drug prescription data to control for confounding in outcome comparisons between hospitals

BMC Health Services Research

Carlo Alberto Perucci¹  Paul Aylin²  Marina Davoli³  Danilo Fusco³  Mirko Di Martino³  Paola Colais³ 

[1]National Outcome Program, Italian Agency for Health Services, Via Puglie 23, Rome, 00187, Italy

[2]School of Public Health, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK

[3]Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service, Lazio Region, Via Santa Costanza 53, Rome, 00198, Italy

关键词: Outcome research;    Risk adjustment;    Administrative data;    Drug prescription;    Clinical variables;   

Others  :  1125866
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0495-3

 received in 2014-04-07, accepted in 2014-10-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Hospital discharge records are an essential source of information when comparing health outcomes among hospitals; however, they contain limited information on acute clinical conditions. Doubts remain as to whether the addition of clinical and drug consumption information would improve the prediction of health outcomes and reduce confounding in inter-hospital comparisons. The objective of the study is to compare the performance of two multivariate risk adjustment models, with and without clinical data and drug prescription information, in terms of their capability to a) predict short-term outcome rates and b) compare hospitals’ risk-adjusted outcome rates using two risk-adjustment procedures.

Methods

Observational, retrospective study based on hospital data collected at the regional level.

Two cohorts of patients discharged in 2010 from hospitals located in the Lazio Region, Italy: acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and hip fracture (HF). Multivariate logistic regression models were implemented to predict 30-day mortality (AMI) or 48-hour surgery (HF), adjusting for demographic characteristics and comorbidities plus clinical data and drug prescription information. Risk-adjusted outcome rates were derived at the hospital level.

Results

The addition of clinical data and drug prescription information improved the capability of the models to predict the study outcomes for the two conditions investigated. The discriminatory power of the AMI model increases when the clinical data and drug prescription information are included (c-statistic increases from 0.761 to 0.797); for the HF model the increase was more slight (c-statistic increases from 0.555 to 0.574). Some differences were observed between the hospital-adjusted proportion estimated using the two different models. However, the estimated hospital outcome rates were weakly affected by the introduction of clinical data and drug prescription information.

Conclusions

The results show that the available clinical variables and drug prescription information were important complements to the hospital discharge data for characterising the acute severity of the patients. However, when these variables were used for adjustment purposes their contribution was negligible. This conclusion might not apply at other locations, in other time periods and for other health conditions if there is heterogeneity in the clinical conditions between hospitals.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Colais et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Groene O, Skau JKH, Frolich A: An international review of projects on hospital performance assessment. Int J Qual Health Care 2008, 20:162-171.
• [2]Gibberd R, Hancock S, Howley P, Richards K: Using indicators to quantify the potential to improve the quality of health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2004, 16:i37-i43.
• [3]Berwick DM, James B, Coye MJ: Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care 2003, 41:I30-I38.
• [4]Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, Wang Y, Han LF, Ingber MJ, Roman S, Normand SL: An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2006, 113(13):1683-1692.
• [5]Johnston TC, Coory MD, Scott I, Duckett S: Should we add clinical variables to administrative data?: The case of risk-adjusted case fatality rates after admission for acute myocardial infarction. Med Care 2007, 45(12):1180-1185.
• [6]Parker JP, Li Z, Damberg CL, Danielsen B, Carlisle DM: Administrative versus clinical data for coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards: the view from California. Med Care 2006, 44(7):687-695.
• [7]Pine M, Jordan HS, Elixhauser A, Fry DE, Hoaglin DC, Jones B, Meimban R, Warner D, Gonzales J: Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality. JAMA 2007, 297(1):71-76.
• [8]Pine M, Norusis M, Jones B, Rosenthal GE: Predictions of hospital mortality rates: a comparison of data sources. Ann Intern Med 1997, 126(5):347-354.
• [9]Iezzoni L: Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:666-674.
• [10]Park HK, Yoon SJ, Ahn HS, Ahn LS, Seo HJ, Lee SI, Lee KS: Comparison of risk-adjustment models using administrative or clinical data for outcome prediction in patients after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery in Korea. Int J Clin Pract 2007, 61(7):1086-1090.
• [11]Pine M, Jones B, Lou Y-B: Laboratory values improve predictions of hospital mortality. Int J Qual Health Care 1998, 10:491-501.
• [12][http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/2006_1.pdf] webcite Coffey R, Milenkovic M, Andrews RM: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The case for the present on admission (POA) indicator: HCUP methods series report 2006–01 [June 26, 2006]. [Accessed October 8, 2012]. Available at: .
• [13][http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/2011_05.pdf] webcite Coffey R, Milenkovic M, Andrews RM: US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP methods series. The case for the POA indicator: Update 2011 report 2011-05. [Accessed October 24, 2014]. Available at: .
• [14]Kuo RN, Dong YH, Liu JP, Chang CH, Shau WY, Lai MS: Predicting healthcare utilization using a pharmacy-based metric with the WHO’s anatomic therapeutic chemical algorithm. Med Care 2011, 49(11):1031-1039.
• [15]Maio V, Yuen E, Rabinowitz C, Louis D, Jimbo M, Donatini A, Mall S, Taroni F: Using pharmacy data to identify those with chronic conditions in Emilia Romagna, Italy. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(4):232-238.
• [16]Schneeweiss S, Maclure M: Use of comorbidity scores for control of confounding in studies using administrative databases. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29(5):891-898.
• [17]Schneeweiss S, Seeger JD, Maclure M, Wang PS, Avorn J, Glynn RJ: Performance of comorbidity scores to control for confounding in epidemiologic studies using claims data. Am J Epidemiol 2001, 154(9):854-864.
• [18]Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Avorn J, Glynn RJ: Improved comorbidity adjustment for predicting mortality in Medicare populations. Health Serv Res 2003, 38(4):1103-1120.
• [19][http://www.istat.it] webcite Italian National Institute of Statistics. 2010, [accessed on December 2011]. Available at .
• [20]AHRQ Quality Indicators. Guide to Inpatient Quality Indicators: Quality of Care in Hospitals - Volume, Mortality, and Utilization [Version 3.1]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (MD); 2007.
• [21]Tu JV, Khalid L, Donovan LR, Ko DT: Indicators of quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. CMAJ 2008, 179(9):909-915.
• [22]Löfvendahl S, Eckerlund I, Hansagi H, Malmqvist B, Resch S, Hanning M: Waiting for orthopaedic surgery: factors associated with waiting times and patients’ opinion. Int J Qual Health Care 2005, 17(2):133-140.
• [23]Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982, 143(1):29-36.
• [24]Dingyi Z: Poisson Regression Adjustment of Event Rates And Its Macro Procedure ADJ_POIS. SAS Conference Proceedings: SAS Users Group International 24 April 11–14. SUGI24, Miami Beach, Florida; 1999.
• [25]SAS/STAT software, version 8. Cary, NC, SAS Institute, Inc; 1999.
• [26]Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, Wang Y, Han LF, Ingber MJ, Roman S, Normand SL: An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with heart failure. Circulation 2006, 113:1693-1701.
• [27]Escobar GJ, Greene JD, Scheirer P, Gardner MN, Draper D, Kipnis P: Risk-adjusting hospital inpatient mortality using automated inpatient, outpatient, and laboratory databases. Med Care 2008, 46(3):232-239.
• [28]Liu V, Kipnis P, Gould MK, Escobar GJ: Length of stay predictions: improvements through the use of automated laboratory and comorbidity variables. Med Care 2010, 48(8):739-744.
• [29]Mohammed MA, Deeks JJ, Girling A, Rudge G, Carmalt M, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ: Evidence of methodological bias in hospital standardised mortality ratios: retrospective database study of English hospitals. BMJ 2009, 338:b780.
• [30][http://www.epidemiologia.lazio.it/prevale10/index.php] webcite Lazio Regional Health Service (RHS) Outcome Evaluation Program 2006–2009. [Accessed December 8, 2013]. Available at: .
• [31]Fusco D, Barone AP, Sorge C, D'Ovidio M, Stafoggia M, Lallo A, Davoli M, Perucci CA: P. Re.Val.E.: outcome research program for the evaluation of health care quality in Lazio, Italy. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Iezzoni LI: Risk Adjustment for Measuring Healthcare Outcomes. Health Administration Press Ann Arbor, Michigan; 1997.