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.
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.
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.
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.
Post author correction
Article Type: ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
AuthorsCarlo Corbellini, Bruno Andreoni, Luca Ansaloni, Giovanni Sgroi, Mario Martinotti, Ildo Scandroglio, Pierluigi Carzaniga, Mauro Longoni, Diego Foschi, Paolo Dionigi, Eugenio Morandi, Mauro Agnello, Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group
- • Accepted on 27/10/2017
- • Available online on 05/12/2017
This article is available as full text PDF.
- Corbellini, Carlo [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1, * Corresponding Author (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- Andreoni, Bruno [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 2, 3
- Ansaloni, Luca [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4
- Sgroi, Giovanni [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5
- Martinotti, Mario [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 6
- Scandroglio, Ildo [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 7
- Carzaniga, Pierluigi [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 8
- Longoni, Mauro [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 9
- Foschi, Diego [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3, 10
- Dionigi, Paolo [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 11, 12
- Morandi, Eugenio [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 1
- Agnello, Mauro [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 13
- Lombardy Oncologic Network Work Group
Department of General Surgery, Rho Hospital, ASST Rhodense, Milan - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan - Italy
General Surgery Recidency, University of Milan, Milan - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIII, ASST-Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Treviglio Hospital, ASST di Bergamo, Bergamo - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Cremona Hospital, ASST Cremona, Cremona - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Busto Arsizio Hospital, - ASST Valle Olona, Varese - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Presidio Ospedaliero di Merate, ASST Lecco, Lecco - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Bassini Hospital, Cinisello Balsamo, ASST Nord Milano, Milan - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Luigi Sacco, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milan - Italy
Department of General Surgery, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo di Pavia, Pavia - Italy
General Surgery Recidency, University of Pavia, Pavia - Italy
Office of Improvement and Innovation at Lombardy Health Service Department, Lombardy - Italy