Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data

Shagufta Yasmeen, Patrick S Romano, Michael E. Schembri, Janet M. Keyzer, William M. Gilbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

192 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to estimate the validity of obstetric procedures and diagnoses in California patient discharge data. Study design: We randomly sampled 1611 deliveries from 52 of 267 California hospitals that performed more than 678 eligible deliveries in 1992 to 1993. We compared hospital-reported procedures and diagnoses against our recoding of the same records. Results: Cesarean, forceps, and vacuum delivery were accurately reported, with sensitivities and positive predictive values exceeding 90%. Episiotomy was underreported (70% sensitivity). Cesarean indications were reported with at least 60% sensitivity, except uterine inertia, herpes, and long labor. Among comorbidities, sensitivity exceeded 60% for chorioamnionitis, diabetes, premature labor, preeclampsia, and intrauterine death. Sensitivity was poor (less than 60%) for anemia, asthma, thyroid disorders, mental disorders, drug abuse, genitourinary infections, obesity, fibroids, excessive fetal growth, hypertension, premature rupture, polyhydramnios, and postdates. Conclusion: The validity of hospital-reported obstetric procedures and diagnoses varies, with moderate to high accuracy for some codes but poor accuracy for others.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)992-1001
Number of pages10
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume194
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2006

Fingerprint

Obstetrics
Uterine Inertia
Episiotomy
Polyhydramnios
Chorioamnionitis
Patient Discharge
Premature Obstetric Labor
Leiomyoma
Vacuum
Fetal Development
Pre-Eclampsia
Surgical Instruments
Mental Disorders
Substance-Related Disorders
Comorbidity
Anemia
Rupture
Thyroid Gland
Asthma
Obesity

Keywords

  • Accuracy
  • Administrative data
  • Obstetrics
  • Risk factors
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. / Yasmeen, Shagufta; Romano, Patrick S; Schembri, Michael E.; Keyzer, Janet M.; Gilbert, William M.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 194, No. 4, 04.2006, p. 992-1001.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yasmeen, Shagufta ; Romano, Patrick S ; Schembri, Michael E. ; Keyzer, Janet M. ; Gilbert, William M. / Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2006 ; Vol. 194, No. 4. pp. 992-1001.
@article{8554caf9ff394d9897f9d85a95b7928a,
title = "Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data",
abstract = "Objective: The objective of the study was to estimate the validity of obstetric procedures and diagnoses in California patient discharge data. Study design: We randomly sampled 1611 deliveries from 52 of 267 California hospitals that performed more than 678 eligible deliveries in 1992 to 1993. We compared hospital-reported procedures and diagnoses against our recoding of the same records. Results: Cesarean, forceps, and vacuum delivery were accurately reported, with sensitivities and positive predictive values exceeding 90{\%}. Episiotomy was underreported (70{\%} sensitivity). Cesarean indications were reported with at least 60{\%} sensitivity, except uterine inertia, herpes, and long labor. Among comorbidities, sensitivity exceeded 60{\%} for chorioamnionitis, diabetes, premature labor, preeclampsia, and intrauterine death. Sensitivity was poor (less than 60{\%}) for anemia, asthma, thyroid disorders, mental disorders, drug abuse, genitourinary infections, obesity, fibroids, excessive fetal growth, hypertension, premature rupture, polyhydramnios, and postdates. Conclusion: The validity of hospital-reported obstetric procedures and diagnoses varies, with moderate to high accuracy for some codes but poor accuracy for others.",
keywords = "Accuracy, Administrative data, Obstetrics, Risk factors, Validity",
author = "Shagufta Yasmeen and Romano, {Patrick S} and Schembri, {Michael E.} and Keyzer, {Janet M.} and Gilbert, {William M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.058",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "194",
pages = "992--1001",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data

AU - Yasmeen, Shagufta

AU - Romano, Patrick S

AU - Schembri, Michael E.

AU - Keyzer, Janet M.

AU - Gilbert, William M.

PY - 2006/4

Y1 - 2006/4

N2 - Objective: The objective of the study was to estimate the validity of obstetric procedures and diagnoses in California patient discharge data. Study design: We randomly sampled 1611 deliveries from 52 of 267 California hospitals that performed more than 678 eligible deliveries in 1992 to 1993. We compared hospital-reported procedures and diagnoses against our recoding of the same records. Results: Cesarean, forceps, and vacuum delivery were accurately reported, with sensitivities and positive predictive values exceeding 90%. Episiotomy was underreported (70% sensitivity). Cesarean indications were reported with at least 60% sensitivity, except uterine inertia, herpes, and long labor. Among comorbidities, sensitivity exceeded 60% for chorioamnionitis, diabetes, premature labor, preeclampsia, and intrauterine death. Sensitivity was poor (less than 60%) for anemia, asthma, thyroid disorders, mental disorders, drug abuse, genitourinary infections, obesity, fibroids, excessive fetal growth, hypertension, premature rupture, polyhydramnios, and postdates. Conclusion: The validity of hospital-reported obstetric procedures and diagnoses varies, with moderate to high accuracy for some codes but poor accuracy for others.

AB - Objective: The objective of the study was to estimate the validity of obstetric procedures and diagnoses in California patient discharge data. Study design: We randomly sampled 1611 deliveries from 52 of 267 California hospitals that performed more than 678 eligible deliveries in 1992 to 1993. We compared hospital-reported procedures and diagnoses against our recoding of the same records. Results: Cesarean, forceps, and vacuum delivery were accurately reported, with sensitivities and positive predictive values exceeding 90%. Episiotomy was underreported (70% sensitivity). Cesarean indications were reported with at least 60% sensitivity, except uterine inertia, herpes, and long labor. Among comorbidities, sensitivity exceeded 60% for chorioamnionitis, diabetes, premature labor, preeclampsia, and intrauterine death. Sensitivity was poor (less than 60%) for anemia, asthma, thyroid disorders, mental disorders, drug abuse, genitourinary infections, obesity, fibroids, excessive fetal growth, hypertension, premature rupture, polyhydramnios, and postdates. Conclusion: The validity of hospital-reported obstetric procedures and diagnoses varies, with moderate to high accuracy for some codes but poor accuracy for others.

KW - Accuracy

KW - Administrative data

KW - Obstetrics

KW - Risk factors

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645857989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645857989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.058

DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.058

M3 - Article

C2 - 16580288

AN - SCOPUS:33645857989

VL - 194

SP - 992

EP - 1001

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 4

ER -