How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety

Saskia E. Drösler, Patrick S Romano, Vijaya Sundararajan, Bernard Burnand, Cyrille Colin, Harold Pincus, William Ghali

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. Design: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. Results: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. Conclusions: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbermzt090
Pages (from-to)16-25
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Patient Safety
Safety
Health Care Quality Indicators
Central Venous Catheters
Lacerations
Quality of Health Care
Health Services Research
International Classification of Diseases
Foreign Bodies
Punctures
Information Systems
Morbidity
Infection

Keywords

  • Diagnosis-related groups
  • International classification of diseases
  • Patient safety
  • Quality indicators
  • Risk adjustment
  • World health organization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety. / Drösler, Saskia E.; Romano, Patrick S; Sundararajan, Vijaya; Burnand, Bernard; Colin, Cyrille; Pincus, Harold; Ghali, William.

In: International Journal for Quality in Health Care, Vol. 26, No. 1, mzt090, 02.2014, p. 16-25.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{18889ae48b684ff3870191a9916080f9,
title = "How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety",
abstract = "Objective: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. Design: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. Results: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90{\%} of central venous catheter infections and 97-99{\%} of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. Conclusions: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.",
keywords = "Diagnosis-related groups, International classification of diseases, Patient safety, Quality indicators, Risk adjustment, World health organization",
author = "Dr{\"o}sler, {Saskia E.} and Romano, {Patrick S} and Vijaya Sundararajan and Bernard Burnand and Cyrille Colin and Harold Pincus and William Ghali",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1093/intqhc/mzt090",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "16--25",
journal = "International Journal for Quality in Health Care",
issn = "1353-4505",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety

AU - Drösler, Saskia E.

AU - Romano, Patrick S

AU - Sundararajan, Vijaya

AU - Burnand, Bernard

AU - Colin, Cyrille

AU - Pincus, Harold

AU - Ghali, William

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Objective: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. Design: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. Results: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. Conclusions: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.

AB - Objective: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. Design: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. Results: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. Conclusions: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.

KW - Diagnosis-related groups

KW - International classification of diseases

KW - Patient safety

KW - Quality indicators

KW - Risk adjustment

KW - World health organization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893573784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893573784&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/intqhc/mzt090

DO - 10.1093/intqhc/mzt090

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 16

EP - 25

JO - International Journal for Quality in Health Care

JF - International Journal for Quality in Health Care

SN - 1353-4505

IS - 1

M1 - mzt090

ER -