Validation of two case definitions to identify pressure ulcers using hospital administrative data.

OBJECTIVE

Pressure ulcer development is a quality of care indicator, as pressure ulcers are potentially preventable. Yet pressure ulcer is a leading cause of morbidity, discomfort and additional healthcare costs for inpatients. Methods are lacking for accurate surveillance of pressure ulcer in hospitals to track occurrences and evaluate care improvement strategies. The main study aim was to validate hospital discharge abstract database (DAD) in recording pressure ulcers against nursing consult reports, and to calculate prevalence of pressure ulcers in Alberta, Canada in DAD. We hypothesised that a more inclusive case definition for pressure ulcers would enhance validity of cases identified in administrative data for research and quality improvement purposes.

SETTING

A cohort of patients with pressure ulcers were identified from enterostomal (ET) nursing consult documents at a large university hospital in 2011.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 1217 patients with pressure ulcers in ET nursing documentation that were linked to a corresponding record in DAD to validate DAD for correct and accurate identification of pressure ulcer occurrence, using two case definitions for pressure ulcer.

RESULTS

Using pressure ulcer definition 1 (7 codes), prevalence was 1.4%, and using definition 2 (29 codes), prevalence was 4.2% after adjusting for misclassifications. The results were lower than expected. Definition 1 sensitivity was 27.7% and specificity was 98.8%, while definition 2 sensitivity was 32.8% and specificity was 95.9%. Pressure ulcer in both DAD and ET consultation increased with age, number of comorbidities and length of stay.

CONCLUSION

DAD underestimate pressure ulcer prevalence. Since various codes are used to record pressure ulcers in DAD, the case definition with more codes captures more pressure ulcer cases, and may be useful for monitoring facility trends. However, low sensitivity suggests that this data source may not be accurate for determining overall prevalence, and should be cautiously compared with other prevalence studies.