Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 1994 Mar;3(1):3–10. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.1.3

Comparative hospital databases: value for management and quality.

R Cleary 1, R Beard 1, J Coles 1, B Devlin 1, A Hopkins 1, D Schumacher 1, I Wickings 1
PMCID: PMC1055175  PMID: 10136257

Abstract

OBJECTIVES--To establish an accurate and reliable comparative database of discharge abstracts and to appraise its value for assessments of quality of care. DESIGN--Retrospective review of case notes by trained research abstractors and comparison with matched information as routinely collected by the hospitals' own information systems. SETTING--Three district general hospitals and two major London teaching hospitals. PATIENTS--The database included 3905 medical and surgical cases and 2082 obstetric cases from 1990 and 1991. MAIN MEASURES--Accessibility of case notes; measures of reliability between reviewers and of validity of case note content; application of high level quality indicators. RESULTS--The existing hospital systems extracted insufficient detail from case notes to conduct clinical comparative analyses for medical and surgical cases. The research abstractors at least doubled the diagnostic codes extracted. Interabstractor agreement of about 70% was obtained for primary diagnosis and assignment to diagnosis related group. These data were sufficient to create a comparative database and apply high level quality indicators designed to flag topics for further study. For obstetric-specific indicators the rates were comparable for abstractors and the hospital information systems, which in each case was a departmentally based system (SMMIS) producing more detailed and accessible data. CONCLUSIONS--Current methods of extracting and coding diagnostic and procedural data from case notes in this sample of hospitals is unsatisfactory: notes were difficult to access and recording is unacceptably incomplete. IMPLICATIONS--Improvements as piloted in this project, are readily available should the NHS, hospital managers, and clinicians see the value of these data in their clinical and managerial activities.

Full text

PDF
3

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Barrie J. L., Marsh D. R. Quality of data in the Manchester orthopaedic database. BMJ. 1992 Jan 18;304(6820):159–162. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6820.159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chantler C. Management and information. BMJ. 1992 Mar 7;304(6827):632–635. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6827.632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Collopy B. T. Developing clinical indicators: the ACHS Care Evaluation Program. Aust Clin Rev. 1990;10(2):83–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Concato J., Horwitz R. I., Feinstein A. R., Elmore J. G., Schiff S. F. Problems of comorbidity in mortality after prostatectomy. JAMA. 1992 Feb 26;267(8):1077–1082. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hsia D. C., Ahern C. A., Ritchie B. P., Moscoe L. M., Krushat W. M. Medicare reimbursement accuracy under the prospective payment system, 1985 to 1988. JAMA. 1992 Aug 19;268(7):896–899. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hsia D. C., Krushat W. M., Fagan A. B., Tebbutt J. A., Kusserow R. P. Accuracy of diagnostic coding for Medicare patients under the prospective-payment system. N Engl J Med. 1988 Feb 11;318(6):352–355. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198802113180604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Maxwell R. J. Quality assessment in health. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 May 12;288(6428):1470–1472. doi: 10.1136/bmj.288.6428.1470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. McKee M. Routine data: a resource for clinical audit? Qual Health Care. 1993 Jun;2(2):104–111. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2.2.104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rees J. L. Accuracy of hospital activity analysis data in estimating the incidence of proximal femoral fracture. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982 Jun 19;284(6332):1856–1857. doi: 10.1136/bmj.284.6332.1856. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Salive M. E., Mayfield J. A., Weissman N. W. Patient Outcomes Research Teams and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Health Serv Res. 1990 Dec;25(5):697–708. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Steffen G. E. Quality medical care. A definition. JAMA. 1988 Jul 1;260(1):56–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sunderland R. Inaccurate coding corrupts medical information. Arch Dis Child. 1985 Jun;60(6):593–594. doi: 10.1136/adc.60.6.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tarlov A. R., Ware J. E., Jr, Greenfield S., Nelson E. C., Perrin E., Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989 Aug 18;262(7):925–930. doi: 10.1001/jama.262.7.925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Wennberg J. E., Roos N., Sola L., Schori A., Jaffe R. Use of claims data systems to evaluate health care outcomes. Mortality and reoperation following prostatectomy. JAMA. 1987 Feb 20;257(7):933–936. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Whates P. D., Birzgalis A. R., Irving M. Accuracy of hospital activity analysis operation codes. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982 Jun 19;284(6332):1857–1858. doi: 10.1136/bmj.284.6332.1857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES