Dataset Information

Assessing quality of medical death certification: Concordance between gold standard diagnosis and underlying cause of death in selected Mexican hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In Mexico, the vital registration system relies on information collected from death certificates to generate official mortality figures. Although the death certificate has high coverage across the country, there is little information regarding its validity. The objective of this study was to assess the concordance between the underlying cause of death in official statistics obtained from death certificates and a gold standard diagnosis of the same deaths derived from medical records of hospitals.

Methods

The study sample consisted of 1,589 deaths that occurred in 34 public hospitals in the Federal District and the state of Morelos, Mexico in 2009. Neonatal, child, and adult cases were selected for causes of death that included infectious diseases, noncommunicable diseases, and injuries. We compared the underlying cause of death, obtained from medical death certificates, against a gold standard diagnosis derived from a review of medical records developed by the Population Health Metrics Research Consortium. We used chance-corrected concordance and accuracy as metrics to evaluate the quality of performance of the death certificate.

Results

Analysis considering only the underlying cause of death resulted in a median chance-corrected concordance between the cause of death in medical death certificates versus the gold standard of 54.3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 52.2, 55.6) for neonates, 38.5% (37.0, 40.0) for children, and 66.5% (65.9, 66.9) for adults. The accuracy resulting from the same analysis was 0.756 (0.747, 0.769) for neonates, 0.683 (0.663, 0.701) for children, and 0.780 (0.774, 0.785) for adults. Median chance-corrected concordance and accuracy increased when considering the mention of any cause of death in the death certificate, not just the underlying cause. Concordance varied substantially depending on cause of death, and accuracy varied depending on the true cause-specific mortality fraction composition.

Conclusions

Although we cannot generalize our conclusions to Mexico as a whole, the results demonstrate important problems with the quality of the main source of information for causes of death used by decision-makers in settings with highly technological vital registration systems. It is necessary to improve death certification procedures, especially in the case of child and neonatal deaths. This requires an important commitment from the health system and health institutions.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3160931 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCorrect certification of cause of death by physicians (i.e. completing the medical certificate of cause of death or MCCOD) and correct coding according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD) rules are essential to produce quality mortality statistics to inform health policy. Despite clear guidelines, errors in medical certification are common. This study objectively measures the impact of different medical certification errors upon the selection of the underlying cause of death.MethodsA sample of 1592 error-free MCCODs were selected from the 2017 United States multiple cause of death data. The ten most common types of errors in completing the MCCOD (according to published studies) were individually simulated on the error-free MCCODs. After each simulation, the MCCODs were coded using Iris automated mortality coding software. Chance-corrected concordance (CCC) was used to measure the impact of certification errors on the underlying cause of death. Weights for each error type and Socio-demographic Index (SDI) group (representing different mortality conditions) were calculated from the CCC and categorised (very high, high, medium and low) to describe their effect on cause of death accuracy.FindingsThe only very high impact error type was reporting an ill-defined condition as the underlying cause of death. High impact errors were found to be reporting competing causes in Part 1 [of the death certificate] and illegibility, with medium impact errors being reporting underlying cause in Part 2 [of the death certificate], incorrect or absent time intervals and reporting contributory causes in Part 1, and low impact errors comprising multiple causes per line and incorrect sequence. There was only small difference in error importance between SDI groups.ConclusionsReporting an ill-defined condition as the underlying cause of death can seriously affect the coding outcome, while other certification errors were mitigated through the correct application of mortality coding rules. Training of physicians in not reporting ill-defined conditions on the MCCOD and mortality coders in correct coding practices and using Iris should be important components of national strategies to improve cause of death data quality.

Project description:Accurate and timely data on cause of death are critically important for guiding health programs and policies. Deaths certified by doctors are implicitly considered to be reliable and accurate, yet the quality of information provided in the international Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD) usually varies according to the personnel involved in certification, the diagnostic capacity of the hospital, and the category of hospitals. There are no published studies that have analysed how certifying doctors in Bangladesh adhere to international rules when completing the MCCD or have assessed the quality of clinical record keeping.The study took place between January 2011 and April 2014 in the Chandpur and Comilla districts of Bangladesh. We introduced the international MCCD to all study hospitals. Trained project physicians assigned an underlying cause of death, assessed the quality of the death certificate, and reported the degree of certainty of the medical records provided for a given cause. We examined the frequency of common errors in completing the MCCD, the leading causes of in-hospital deaths, and the degree of certainty in the cause of death data.The study included 4914 death certificates. 72.9% of medical records were of too poor quality to assign a cause of death, with little difference by age, hospital, and cause of death. 95.6% of death certificates did not indicate the time interval between onset and death, 31.6% required a change in sequence, 13.9% required to include a new diagnosis, 50.7% used abbreviations, 41.5% used multiple causes per line, and 33.2% used an ill-defined condition as the underlying cause of death. 99.1% of death certificates had at least one error. The leading cause of death among adults was stroke (15.8%), among children was pneumonia (31.7%), and among neonates was birth asphyxia (52.8%).Physicians in Bangladeshi hospitals had difficulties in completing the MCCD correctly. Physicians routinely made errors in death certification practices and medical record quality was poor. There is an urgent need to improve death certification practices and the quality of hospital data in Bangladesh if these data are to be useful for policy.

Project description:BackgroundValid cause of death data are essential for health policy formation. The quality of medical certification of cause of death (MCCOD) by physicians directly affects the utility of cause of death data for public policy and hospital management. Whilst training in correct certification has been provided for physicians and medical students, the impact of training is often unknown. This study was conducted to systematically review and meta-analyse the effectiveness of training interventions to improve the quality of MCCOD.MethodsThis review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration ID: CRD42020172547) and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched using pre-defined search strategies covering the eligibility criteria. Studies were selected using four screening questions using the Distiller-SR software. Risk of bias assessments were conducted with GRADE recommendations and ROBINS-I criteria for randomised and non-randomised interventions, respectively. Study selection, data extraction and bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers with a third reviewer to resolve conflicts. Clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity assessments were conducted. Meta-analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.4 software using the 'generic inverse variance method' with risk difference as the pooled estimate. A 'summary of findings' table was prepared using the 'GRADEproGDT' online tool. Sensitivity analyses and narrative synthesis of the findings were also performed.ResultsAfter de-duplication, 616 articles were identified and 21 subsequently selected for synthesis of findings; four underwent meta-analysis. The meta-analyses indicated that selected training interventions significantly reduced error rates among participants, with pooled risk differences of 15-33%. Robustness was identified with the sensitivity analyses. The findings of the narrative synthesis were similarly suggestive of favourable outcomes for both physicians and medical trainees.ConclusionsTraining physicians in correct certification improves the accuracy and policy utility of cause of death data. Investment in MCCOD training activities should be considered as a key component of strategies to improve vital registration systems given the potential of such training to substantially improve the quality of cause of death data.