This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 115/12/1518    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.106.633008v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shahian, D. M. Articles by Normand, S.-L. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shahian, D. M. Articles by Normand, S.-L. T. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Personal Medical Records Related Collections Health policy and outcome research CV surgery: coronary artery disease Related Article

(Circulation. 2007;115:1518-1527.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Cardiovascular Surgery

Comparison of Clinical and Administrative Data Sources for Hospital Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Report Cards

David M. Shahian, MD; Treacy Silverstein, BS; Ann F. Lovett, RN, MA; Robert E. Wolf, MS; Sharon-Lise T. Normand, PhD

From Tufts University School of Medicine (D.M.S.), Harvard Medical School (T.S., A.F.L., R.E.W., S.-L.T.N.), and Harvard School of Public Health (S.T.N.), Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Sharon-Lise Normand, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail Sharon{at}hcp.med.harvard.edu

Received April 10, 2006; accepted December 22, 2006.

Background— Regardless of statistical methodology, public performance report cards must use the highest-quality validated data, preferably from a prospectively maintained clinical database. Using logistic regression and hierarchical models, we compared hospital cardiac surgery profiling results based on clinical data with those derived from contemporaneous administrative data.

Methods and Results— Fiscal year 2003 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery results based on an audited and validated Massachusetts clinical registry were compared with those derived from a contemporaneous state administrative database, the latter using the inclusion/exclusion criteria and risk model of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. There was a 27.4% disparity in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery volume (4440 clinical, 5657 administrative), a 0.83% difference in observed in-hospital mortality (2.05% versus 2.88%), corresponding differences in risk-adjusted mortality calculated by various statistical methodologies, and 1 hospital classified as an outlier only with the administrative data–based approach. The discrepancies in volumes and risk-adjusted mortality were most notable for higher-volume programs that presumably perform a higher proportion of combined procedures that were misclassified as isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in the administrative cohort. Subsequent analyses of a patient cohort common to both databases revealed the smoothing effect of hierarchical models, a 9% relative difference in mortality (2.21% versus 2.03%) resulting from nonstandardized mortality end points, and 1 hospital classified as an outlier using logistic regression but not using hierarchical regression.

Conclusions— Cardiac surgery report cards using administrative data are problematic compared with those derived from audited and validated clinical data, primarily because of case misclassification and nonstandardized end points.

---

 

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Related Article:

Issue Highlights
Circulation 2007 115: 1503. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Westaby, N. Archer, N. Manning, S. Adwani, C. Grebenik, O. Ormerod, R. Pillai, and N. Wilson Comparison of hospital episode statistics and central cardiac audit database in public reporting of congenital heart surgery mortality BMJ, October 13, 2007; 335(7623): 759 - 759. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]