Limits...
Data quality issues impede comparability of hospital treatment delay performance indicators.

Verweij LM, Tra J, Engel J, Verheij RA, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C - Neth Heart J (2015)

Bottom Line: Moreover, recording accessibility and completeness of time points varied widely within and between hospitals.Hospitals use different definitions for treatment delay and vary greatly in the extent to which the necessary data are available, accessible and complete, impeding comparability between hospitals.Indicator developers, users and hospitals providing data should be aware of these issues and aim to improve data quality in order to facilitate comparability of performance indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Netherlands Institute of Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands, l.verweij@nivel.nl.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To assess the comparability of five performance indicator scores for treatment delay among patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to the quality of the underlying data.

Methods: Secondary analyses were performed on data from 1017 patients in seven Dutch hospitals. Data were collected using standardised forms for patients discharged in 2012. Comparability was assessed as the number of occasions the indicator threshold was reached for each hospital.

Results: Hospitals recorded different time points based on different interpretations of the definitions. This led to substantial differences in indicator scores, ranging from 57 to 100 % of the indictor threshold being reached. Some hospitals recorded all the required data elements for calculating the performance indicators but none of the data elements could be retrieved in a fully automated way. Moreover, recording accessibility and completeness of time points varied widely within and between hospitals.

Conclusion: Hospitals use different definitions for treatment delay and vary greatly in the extent to which the necessary data are available, accessible and complete, impeding comparability between hospitals. Indicator developers, users and hospitals providing data should be aware of these issues and aim to improve data quality in order to facilitate comparability of performance indicators.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparability of data: flow from collection to interpretation.
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4547943&req=5

Fig1: Comparability of data: flow from collection to interpretation.

Mentions: There are several steps in the process that leads from an event happening in clinical practice to a performance indicator intended to measure the performance of a clinical practice regarding that event [2]. This process is illustrated in Fig. 1. Variations in any of these steps will lead to different performance indicator scores. Ideally, data recorded for performance indicators are based on sound clinical practice guidelines, in which the definitions and inclusion and exclusion criteria of the performance indicator are clear and unambiguous and then processed in a uniform way to calculate the performance indicator in a uniform way. In reality, however, definitions are far from unambiguous and data are recorded in a variety of ways, impeding comparability of indicators for external quality control [3, 4]. This means that users of performance indicators need to be aware of the possible impact of variations in definitions and quality of the data in terms of availability, accessibility and completeness [5, 6]. The more unambiguous the definitions and the higher the quality of the underlying data, the more likely the performance indicator scores will be accurate and consistent between hospitals [7].Fig. 1


Data quality issues impede comparability of hospital treatment delay performance indicators.

Verweij LM, Tra J, Engel J, Verheij RA, de Bruijne MC, Wagner C - Neth Heart J (2015)

Comparability of data: flow from collection to interpretation.
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4547943&req=5

Fig1: Comparability of data: flow from collection to interpretation.
Mentions: There are several steps in the process that leads from an event happening in clinical practice to a performance indicator intended to measure the performance of a clinical practice regarding that event [2]. This process is illustrated in Fig. 1. Variations in any of these steps will lead to different performance indicator scores. Ideally, data recorded for performance indicators are based on sound clinical practice guidelines, in which the definitions and inclusion and exclusion criteria of the performance indicator are clear and unambiguous and then processed in a uniform way to calculate the performance indicator in a uniform way. In reality, however, definitions are far from unambiguous and data are recorded in a variety of ways, impeding comparability of indicators for external quality control [3, 4]. This means that users of performance indicators need to be aware of the possible impact of variations in definitions and quality of the data in terms of availability, accessibility and completeness [5, 6]. The more unambiguous the definitions and the higher the quality of the underlying data, the more likely the performance indicator scores will be accurate and consistent between hospitals [7].Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Moreover, recording accessibility and completeness of time points varied widely within and between hospitals.Hospitals use different definitions for treatment delay and vary greatly in the extent to which the necessary data are available, accessible and complete, impeding comparability between hospitals.Indicator developers, users and hospitals providing data should be aware of these issues and aim to improve data quality in order to facilitate comparability of performance indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Netherlands Institute of Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands, l.verweij@nivel.nl.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To assess the comparability of five performance indicator scores for treatment delay among patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to the quality of the underlying data.

Methods: Secondary analyses were performed on data from 1017 patients in seven Dutch hospitals. Data were collected using standardised forms for patients discharged in 2012. Comparability was assessed as the number of occasions the indicator threshold was reached for each hospital.

Results: Hospitals recorded different time points based on different interpretations of the definitions. This led to substantial differences in indicator scores, ranging from 57 to 100 % of the indictor threshold being reached. Some hospitals recorded all the required data elements for calculating the performance indicators but none of the data elements could be retrieved in a fully automated way. Moreover, recording accessibility and completeness of time points varied widely within and between hospitals.

Conclusion: Hospitals use different definitions for treatment delay and vary greatly in the extent to which the necessary data are available, accessible and complete, impeding comparability between hospitals. Indicator developers, users and hospitals providing data should be aware of these issues and aim to improve data quality in order to facilitate comparability of performance indicators.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus