Agreement between referral information and discharge diagnoses according to Norwegian elective treatment guidelines – a cross-sectional study

BMC Health Services Research

Jon Helgeland¹  Lise Lund Håheim¹ 

[1] Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Service, St.Olavs plass, Oslo N-0130, Norway

关键词: Referral;    Sensitivity;    Specialist health service;    Elective treatment;    Diagnosis;    Discharge;    Validity;   

Others  :  1118182
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0493-5

 received in 2014-02-10, accepted in 2014-10-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Norway introduced 32 priority guidelines for elective health treatment in the specialist health service in the period 2008–9. The guidelines were intended to reduce large differences in waiting times among hospitals, streamline referrals and ensure that patients accessed the necessary healthcare to which they were entitled for certain conditions. Referral information guided the priorities. As the referral information was key to future evaluation of the guidelines, this study validates the referral information in hospital patient records against discharge diagnoses, because only the discharge diagnosis is recorded in the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) database, which is used in the main evaluation.

Methods

Of the specific conditions from 10 priority guidelines, 20 were selected for review for the period 2008–9 at 4 hospitals in Norway. The ICD-10 diagnoses per disease or condition were given in retrospect by clinicians who participated in the expert groups developing the priority guidelines. Reasons for deviations between referral information and discharge diagnoses were coded into four categories, according to the degree of precision of the former compared with the latter.

Results

In all, 1854 medical records were available for review. The diagnostic precision of the referrals differed significantly between hospitals, and across the 2 years 2008 and 2009. The overall sensitivity was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.92–0.94). For the separate conditions, sensitivity was in the range 0.60–1.00. Experience showed that it was necessary to pay careful attention to the selection of ICD-10 diagnoses for identifying patients. The medical records of psychiatry patients were unavailable in some cases and for certain conditions some were unavailable after use of our record extraction algorithm.

Conclusion

The sensitivity of the referral information on diagnosis or condition was high compared with the discharge diagnosis for the 20 selected conditions from the 10 priority guidelines. Although the review assessed a limited number of the total, we consider the results sufficiently representative and, hence, they will allow use of the NPR data for analyses of the introduction and follow-up of the 32 priority guidelines.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lund Håheim and Helgeland, licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sund R: Quality of the Finnish hospital discharge register: a systematic review. Scand J Public Health 2012, 40:505-515.
• [2]Herrett E, Shah AD, Boggon R, Denaxas S, Smeeth L, van Staa T, Timmis A, Hemingway H: Completeness and diagnostic validity of recording acute myocardial infarction events in primary care, hospital care, disease registry, and national mortality records: cohort study. BMJ 2013, 20:346:f2350.
• [3]Gulsvik AK, Gulsvik A, Svendsen E, Mæhle BO, Thelle DS, Wyller TB: Diagnostic validity of fatal cerebral strokes and coronary deaths in mortality statistics: an autopsy study. Eur J Epidemiol 2011, 26:221-228.
• [4]Ellekjaer H, Holmen J, Krüger O, Terent A: Identification of incident stroke in Norway: hospital discharge data compared with a population-based stroke register. Stroke 1999, 30:56-60.
• [5]Lee YY, Roberts CL, Young J, Dobbins T: Using hospital discharge data to identify incident pregnancy-associated cancers: a validation study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013, 11:13-37.
• [6]Søgaard M, Kornum JB, Schønheyder HC, Thomsen RW: Positive predictive value of the ICD-10 hospital diagnosis of pleural empyema in the Danish national registry of patients. Clin Epidemiol 2011, 23(3):85-89.
• [7]Rix TA, Riahi S, Overvad K, Lundbye-Christensen S, Schmidt EB, Joensen AM: Validity of the diagnoses atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in a Danish patient registry. Scand Cardiovasc J 2012, 46:149-153.
• [8]Lee DS, Donovan L, Austin PC, Gong Y, Liu PP, Rouleau JL, Tu JV: Comparison of coding of heart failure and comorbidities in administrative and clinical data for use in outcomes research. Med Care 2005, 43:182-188.
• [9]Lacasse Y, Montori VM, Lanthier C, Maltis F: The validity of diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from a large administrative database. Can Respir J 2005, 12:251-256.
• [10]Dregan A, Moller H, Murray-Thomas T, Gulliford MC: Validity of cancer diagnosis in a primary care database compared with linked cancer registrations in England. Population-based cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol 2012, 36:425-429.
• [11]Lofthus CM, Cappelen I, Osnes EK, Falch JA, Kristiansen IS, Medhus AW, Nordsletten L, Meyer HE: Local and national electronic databases in Norway demonstrate a varying degree of validity. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:280-285.
• [12]Thomsen LC, Klungsøyr K, Roten LT, Tappert C, Araya E, Baerheim G, Tollaksen K, Fenstad MH, Macsali F, Austgulen R, Bjørge L: Validity of the diagnosis of pre-eclampsia in the medical birth registry of Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013, 92:943-950.
• [13]Arthursson AJ, Furnes O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Söreide JA: Validation of data in the Norwegian arthroplasty register and the Norwegian patient register: 5,134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003. Acta Orthop 2005, 76:823-828.
• [14][http:/ / www.helsedirektoratet.no/ kvalitet-planlegging/ prioriteringer/ Sider/ default.aspx] webcite Norwegian Directorate for Health: Web-Page for Information and Download of the Priority Guidelines. Available at: (in Norwegian). Accessed 19.09.2014.
• [15][www.helsedirektoratet.no/ publikasjoner/ norsk-pasientregister-informasjonsb rosjyre/ Publikasjoner/ norsk-pasientregister-informasjonsb rosjyre.pdf] webcite Norwegian patient registry: Information Brochure. Available at: (in Norwegian). Accessed 19.09.2014.
• [16][www.helsedirektoratet.no/ kvalitet-planlegging/ norsk-pasientregister-npr/ Sider/ default.aspx] webcite Norwegian Patient Register: Information and Contact web-Page. Available at: (in Norwegian). Accessed 19.09.2014.
• [17]Sorensen HT, Sabroe S, Olsen J: A framework for evaluation of secondary data sources for epidemiological research. Int J Epidemiol 1996, 25:435-442.
• [18]Rothman KJ: Epidemiology: An Introduction. Oxford University Press, New York; 2012.