Patel Neel K, Moses Rachel A, Martin Brook I, Lurie Jon D, Mirza Sohail K
Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH.
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 May 1;42(9):682-691. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001879.
Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion operations, comparing rates of repeat spine surgery based on method of ascertainment.
We report the accuracy of a claims-based approach for reporting repeat surgery compared with medical records abstraction as the "gold standard."
Previous studies have reported the validity of a claims-based algorithm for grouping patients by surgical indication and classifying operative features, but their accuracy in measuring surgical quality indicators has not been widely examined.
We identified a subset of patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion operations at a single institution from 1996 to 2011, excluding those with spinal fracture, spinal cord injury, or cancer. From the medical record we abstracted the incidence of repeat spine operation or rehospitalization at 1 year. We cross-classified each event record with its corresponding value derived from claims. The sensitivity and specificity of the claims-based approach were calculated for reoperation within 30, 90, and 365 days, and all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days.
Medical records linked to claims data were obtained for 520 patients undergoing elective lumbar fusion. Reoperation rates based on chart review were 1.0%, 1.3%, 3.6%, compared with 0.8%, 1.7%, and 3.8% based on the final claims methods at 30, 90, and 365 days, respectively. The claims-based algorithm had sensitivities of 80.0%, 100%, and 94.1% and specificities of 100%, 99.6%, 99.2% for repeat surgery within 30, 90, and 365 days, respectively. The sensitivity for all-cause readmission was 50%.
Health care quality improvement efforts often rely on administrative data to report surgical safety. We found that claims-based ascertainment of safety at a single institution was very accurate. However, accuracy depended on careful attention to the timing of outcomes, as well as the definitions and coding of repeat surgery, including how orthopedic device removal codes are classified.
对接受择期腰椎融合手术的患者进行回顾性分析,比较基于确定方法的再次脊柱手术发生率。
我们报告与作为“金标准”的病历摘要相比,基于索赔的方法报告再次手术的准确性。
先前的研究报告了基于索赔的算法在按手术指征对患者进行分组和对手术特征进行分类方面的有效性,但尚未广泛检验其在衡量手术质量指标方面的准确性。
我们确定了1996年至2011年在单一机构接受择期腰椎融合手术的患者子集,排除患有脊柱骨折、脊髓损伤或癌症的患者。从病历中我们提取了1年内再次脊柱手术或再次住院的发生率。我们将每个事件记录与其从索赔中得出的相应值进行交叉分类。计算基于索赔的方法在30、90和365天内再次手术以及30天内全因住院再入院的敏感性和特异性。
获得了520例接受择期腰椎融合手术患者的与索赔数据相关的病历。基于图表审查的再次手术率分别为1.0%、1.3%、3.6%,而基于最终索赔方法在30、90和365天时分别为0.8%、1.7%和3.8%。基于索赔的算法在30、90和365天内再次手术的敏感性分别为80.0%、100%和94.1%,特异性分别为100%、99.6%、99.2%。全因再入院的敏感性为50%。
医疗质量改进工作通常依赖行政数据来报告手术安全性。我们发现基于索赔的单一机构安全性确定非常准确。然而,准确性取决于对结果时间的仔细关注,以及再次手术的定义和编码,包括骨科器械移除代码的分类方式。
3级。