Reliability and validity assessment of administrative databases in measuring the quality of rectal cancer management

Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: Measurement and monitoring of the quality of care using a core set of quality measures are increasing in health service research. Although administrative databases include limited clinical data, they offer an attractive source for quality measurement. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the completeness of different administrative data sources compared to a clinical survey in evaluating rectal cancer cases.

METHODS: Between May 2012 and November 2014, a clinical survey was done on 498 Lombardy patients who had rectal cancer and underwent surgical resection. These collected data were compared with the information extracted from administrative sources including Hospital Discharge Dataset, drug database, daycare activity data, fee-exemption database, and regional screening program database. The agreement evaluation was performed using a set of 12 quality indicators.

RESULTS: Patient complexity was a difficult indicator to measure for lack of clinical data. Preoperative staging was another suboptimal indicator due to the frequent missing administrative registration of tests performed. The agreement between the 2 data sources regarding chemoradiotherapy treatments was high. Screening detection, minimally invasive techniques, length of stay, and unpreventable readmissions were detected as reliable quality indicators. Postoperative morbidity could be a useful indicator but its agreement was lower, as expected.

CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare administrative databases are large and real-time collected repositories of data useful in measuring quality in a healthcare system. Our investigation reveals that the reliability of indicators varies between them. Ideally, a combination of data from both sources could be used in order to improve usefulness of less reliable indicators.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)51-59
Number of pages9
JournalTumori
Volume104
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Rectal Neoplasms
Reproducibility of Results
Information Storage and Retrieval
Databases
Pharmaceutical Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Fees and Charges
Quality of Health Care
Health Services Research
Chemoradiotherapy
Length of Stay
Morbidity
Surveys and Questionnaires
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Administrative databases
  • Healthcare monitoring
  • Healthcare quality
  • Rectal cancer
  • Surgery quality indicators

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Reliability and validity assessment of administrative databases in measuring the quality of rectal cancer management. / Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group.

In: Tumori, Vol. 104, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 51-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group. / Reliability and validity assessment of administrative databases in measuring the quality of rectal cancer management. In: Tumori. 2018 ; Vol. 104, No. 1. pp. 51-59.
@article{f6053edb756549ddae9a0c4972fb1708,
title = "Reliability and validity assessment of administrative databases in measuring the quality of rectal cancer management",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Measurement and monitoring of the quality of care using a core set of quality measures are increasing in health service research. Although administrative databases include limited clinical data, they offer an attractive source for quality measurement. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the completeness of different administrative data sources compared to a clinical survey in evaluating rectal cancer cases.METHODS: Between May 2012 and November 2014, a clinical survey was done on 498 Lombardy patients who had rectal cancer and underwent surgical resection. These collected data were compared with the information extracted from administrative sources including Hospital Discharge Dataset, drug database, daycare activity data, fee-exemption database, and regional screening program database. The agreement evaluation was performed using a set of 12 quality indicators.RESULTS: Patient complexity was a difficult indicator to measure for lack of clinical data. Preoperative staging was another suboptimal indicator due to the frequent missing administrative registration of tests performed. The agreement between the 2 data sources regarding chemoradiotherapy treatments was high. Screening detection, minimally invasive techniques, length of stay, and unpreventable readmissions were detected as reliable quality indicators. Postoperative morbidity could be a useful indicator but its agreement was lower, as expected.CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare administrative databases are large and real-time collected repositories of data useful in measuring quality in a healthcare system. Our investigation reveals that the reliability of indicators varies between them. Ideally, a combination of data from both sources could be used in order to improve usefulness of less reliable indicators.",
keywords = "Administrative databases, Healthcare monitoring, Healthcare quality, Rectal cancer, Surgery quality indicators",
author = "{Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group} and Carlo Corbellini and Bruno Andreoni and Luca Ansaloni and Giovanni Sgroi and Mario Martinotti and Ildo Scandroglio and Pierluigi Carzaniga and Mauro Longoni and Diego Foschi and Paolo Dionigi and Eugenio Morandi and Mauro Agnello",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5301/tj.5000708",
language = "English",
volume = "104",
pages = "51--59",
journal = "Tumori",
issn = "0300-8916",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability and validity assessment of administrative databases in measuring the quality of rectal cancer management

AU - Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group

AU - Corbellini, Carlo

AU - Andreoni, Bruno

AU - Ansaloni, Luca

AU - Sgroi, Giovanni

AU - Martinotti, Mario

AU - Scandroglio, Ildo

AU - Carzaniga, Pierluigi

AU - Longoni, Mauro

AU - Foschi, Diego

AU - Dionigi, Paolo

AU - Morandi, Eugenio

AU - Agnello, Mauro

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - PURPOSE: Measurement and monitoring of the quality of care using a core set of quality measures are increasing in health service research. Although administrative databases include limited clinical data, they offer an attractive source for quality measurement. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the completeness of different administrative data sources compared to a clinical survey in evaluating rectal cancer cases.METHODS: Between May 2012 and November 2014, a clinical survey was done on 498 Lombardy patients who had rectal cancer and underwent surgical resection. These collected data were compared with the information extracted from administrative sources including Hospital Discharge Dataset, drug database, daycare activity data, fee-exemption database, and regional screening program database. The agreement evaluation was performed using a set of 12 quality indicators.RESULTS: Patient complexity was a difficult indicator to measure for lack of clinical data. Preoperative staging was another suboptimal indicator due to the frequent missing administrative registration of tests performed. The agreement between the 2 data sources regarding chemoradiotherapy treatments was high. Screening detection, minimally invasive techniques, length of stay, and unpreventable readmissions were detected as reliable quality indicators. Postoperative morbidity could be a useful indicator but its agreement was lower, as expected.CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare administrative databases are large and real-time collected repositories of data useful in measuring quality in a healthcare system. Our investigation reveals that the reliability of indicators varies between them. Ideally, a combination of data from both sources could be used in order to improve usefulness of less reliable indicators.

AB - PURPOSE: Measurement and monitoring of the quality of care using a core set of quality measures are increasing in health service research. Although administrative databases include limited clinical data, they offer an attractive source for quality measurement. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the completeness of different administrative data sources compared to a clinical survey in evaluating rectal cancer cases.METHODS: Between May 2012 and November 2014, a clinical survey was done on 498 Lombardy patients who had rectal cancer and underwent surgical resection. These collected data were compared with the information extracted from administrative sources including Hospital Discharge Dataset, drug database, daycare activity data, fee-exemption database, and regional screening program database. The agreement evaluation was performed using a set of 12 quality indicators.RESULTS: Patient complexity was a difficult indicator to measure for lack of clinical data. Preoperative staging was another suboptimal indicator due to the frequent missing administrative registration of tests performed. The agreement between the 2 data sources regarding chemoradiotherapy treatments was high. Screening detection, minimally invasive techniques, length of stay, and unpreventable readmissions were detected as reliable quality indicators. Postoperative morbidity could be a useful indicator but its agreement was lower, as expected.CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare administrative databases are large and real-time collected repositories of data useful in measuring quality in a healthcare system. Our investigation reveals that the reliability of indicators varies between them. Ideally, a combination of data from both sources could be used in order to improve usefulness of less reliable indicators.

KW - Administrative databases

KW - Healthcare monitoring

KW - Healthcare quality

KW - Rectal cancer

KW - Surgery quality indicators

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046469062&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046469062&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5301/tj.5000708

DO - 10.5301/tj.5000708

M3 - Article

VL - 104

SP - 51

EP - 59

JO - Tumori

JF - Tumori

SN - 0300-8916

IS - 1

ER -