Patterson L, Weiss H, Schano P
Keystone Peer Review Organization (KePRO), Harrisburg, PA, USA.
Am J Med Qual. 1996 Spring;11(1):S73-7.
Often, information from a single database cannot answer important clinical outcomes or research questions. This article describes efforts to link multiple databases to extract useful health care information. One project, conducted by the Keystone Peer Review Organization (KePRO), focused on the number of combined right and left heart catheterizations done in patients, who were admitted to the hospital for a diagnostic left heart catheterization, for primary coronary artery disease. The study linked data from hospital billing records, patient records, and insurance companies' records. Another effort involves two studies of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) by KePRO and Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. The final case study describes the Crash Outcomes Data Evaluations Systems (CODES) project, conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. To determine if seat belts help to prevent injuries, cut costs, and save lives, it was necessary to build a complete record across multiple sights of care from the crash until final outcome. These examples illustrate the challenges and the advantages of using multiple databases to assess health care outcomes.
通常，来自单一数据库的信息无法回答重要的临床结果或研究问题。本文介绍了为链接多个数据库以提取有用的医疗保健信息所做的努力。由基斯通同行评审组织（KePRO）开展的一个项目，聚焦于因原发性冠状动脉疾病入院接受诊断性左心导管插入术的患者进行左右心导管插入术联合操作的数量。该研究将医院计费记录、患者记录和保险公司记录中的数据进行了链接。另一项工作涉及KePRO和宾夕法尼亚医疗成本控制委员会对急性心肌梗死（AMI）的两项研究。最后一个案例研究描述了宾夕法尼亚州卫生部开展的碰撞结果数据评估系统（CODES）项目。为了确定安全带是否有助于预防伤害、降低成本和挽救生命，有必要建立从碰撞发生到最终结果的多个护理环节的完整记录。这些例子说明了使用多个数据库评估医疗保健结果的挑战和优势。
