Dataset Information

Predictive value of Medicare claims data for identifying revision of index hip replacement was modest.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the positive predictive value of Medicare claims for identifying revision of total hip replacement (THR), a frequent marker of THR quality and outcome.

Study design and setting

We obtained Medicare Part A (Hospital) claims from seven states on patients that had primary THR from July 1995 through June 1996. We searched claims to determine whether these THR recipients had a subsequent revision THR through December 2006. We selected a sample of subjects with codes indicating both index primary and subsequent revision THR. We obtained medical records for both procedures to establish whether the revision occurred on the same side as index primary THR.

Results

Three hundred seventy-four subjects had codes indicating primary THR in 1995-96 and subsequent revision. Seventy-one percent (95% confidence interval: 66, 76) of the revisions were performed on the index joint and would be correctly attributed as revisions of the index THR, using Medicare claims data.

Conclusion

Claims data on revision THR that do not contain information on the side that was operated on are ambiguous with respect to whether the revision was performed on the index or contralateral side. Claims-based analyses of revisions after an index THR should acknowledge and adjust for this source of potential misclassification.

SUBMITTER: Katz JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3886276 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictive value of Medicare claims data for identifying revision of index hip replacement was modest.

Katz Jeffrey N JN Wright Elizabeth A EA Baron John A JA Corbett Kelly L KL Nti Akosua A AA Malchau Henrik H Wright John J Losina Elena E

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20100830 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the positive predictive value of Medicare claims for identifying revision of total hip replacement (THR), a frequent marker of THR quality and outcome.<h4>Study design and setting</h4>We obtained Medicare Part A (Hospital) claims from seven states on patients that had primary THR from July 1995 through June 1996. We searched claims to determine whether these THR recipients had a subsequent revision THR through December 2006. We selected a sample of subjects with co ...[more]

PMID: 20800448

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about how often patients have revision total hip replacement in the same hospital in which they had the primary procedure.MethodsWe examined Medicare claims data to identify patients who had primary total hip replacement from July 1995 to June 1996 and subsequently had revision through December 31, 2006. We examined whether the revision was performed in the same or different hospital from the primary procedure, with different hospitals being categorized as being in a lower, a higher, or the same hospital volume stratum. Hospital strata included twenty-five or fewer cases of total hip replacement annually in the Medicare population, twenty-six to fifty cases, fifty-one to 100 cases, and >100 cases. We calculated the number of revisions generated (primary procedures eventuating in revision) by hospitals in each volume stratum and the number of revisions performed in these hospitals.ResultsOf 4448 revision procedures, 3306 (74%) were performed in hospitals in the same volume stratum as the hospital where the primary procedure was performed. Four hundred twenty-nine revisions (9.6%) were performed in a lower-volume hospital, and 713 (16%) were performed in a higher-volume hospital. Thirty-one (3%) of 960 patients who had revision within one year after the primary total hip replacement had the revision in a lower-volume center, compared with 204 (15%) of 1393 who had revision more than six years after the primary procedure (odds ratio = 4.6 ; 95% confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.8). The ratio of revisions performed to revisions generated was 1.21 for the highest-volume centers and 0.86 for the lowest-volume centers.ConclusionsOf 4448 revisions examined in this study, 429 (<10%) were performed in centers with a lower volume of total hip replacement than the center at which the initial hip replacement was performed, whereas 713 (16%) were performed in higher-volume centers. Higher-volume centers performed 21% more revisions than they generated (531 revisions performed, compared with 438 generated). These data will help to inform health-care policy with regard to the utilization of resources for revision total hip replacement.

Project description:BackgroundAn aging United States population profoundly impacts healthcare from both a medical and financial standpoint, especially with an increase in related procedures such as Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program and Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Program incentivize hospitals to decrease post-operative readmissions by correlating reimbursements with smoother care transitions, thereby decreasing hospital burden and improving quantifiable patient outcomes. Many studies have proposed predictive models built upon risk factors for predicting 30-day THA readmissions.Questions(1) Are there validated statistical models that predict 30-day readmissions for THA patients when appraised with a standards-based, reliable assessment tool?. (2) Which evidence-based factors are significant and have support across models for predicting risk of 30-day readmissions post-THA?MethodsFive major electronic databases were searched to identify studies that examined correlations between post-THA readmission and risk factors using multivariate models. We rigorously applied the PRISMA methodology and TRIPOD criteria for assessment of the prognostic studies.ResultsWe found 26 studies that offered predictive models, of which two presented models tested with validation cohorts. In addition to the many factors grouped into demographic, administrative, and clinical categories, bleeding disorder, higher ASA status, discharge disposition, and functional status appeared to have broad and significant support across the studies.ConclusionsReporting of recent predictive models establishing risk factors for 30-day THA readmissions against the current standard could be improved. Aside from building better performing models, more work is needed to follow the thorough process of undergoing calibration, external validation, and integration with existing EHR systems for pursuing their use in clinical settings. There are several risk factors that are significant in multiple models; these factors should be closely examined clinically and leveraged in future risk modeling efforts.

Project description:BackgroundHip and knee arthroplasties are common and successful procedures, however, success and durability are not guaranteed. The revision burden, defined as the ratio of implant revisions to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, is a measure of the steady state of arthroplasty success in a given registry. This study examines the hypothesis that revision burden would be similar among contemporary joint replacement registries and improving over time compared with historic controls.MethodsWe evaluated the national joint registries of 5 health systems (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR]; National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man; New Zealand Joint Registry [NZJR]; Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register [SHAR] and Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register [SKAR]; and the American Joint Replacement Registry [AJRR]) for hip and knee revision burden over the past 4 years or since registry inception. Historic controls were obtained from previously published reports.ResultsThe 2014 hip revision burden varied from 9.7 percent (NJR) to 11.9 percent (NZJR), and the unweighted average was 10.4 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean hip revision burden was 11.9, 11.9, and 11.4 percent. The 2014 knee revision burden varied from to 6.0 percent (NJR) to 8.1 percent (AJRR), and the unweighted average for the 5 registries studied was 7.0 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean knee revision burden was 6.9, 7.0, and 7.0 percent. Historically, the observed hip revision burden was 15.8 percent and the knee revision burden 8.0 percent.ConclusionsRevision burden has gradually decreased for hip replacements and has remained relatively constant for knee replacements both for the last 4 years and compared to historic controls. Knee revision burden was lower than hip revision burden for each period examined. Revision burden is one measure that may be helpful in following the effect of changes in surgical technique and implant design over time in registry populations and may be a helpful way to compare overall results between registries.

Dataset Information

Predictive value of Medicare claims data for identifying revision of index hip replacement was modest.

Objective

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Predictive value of Medicare claims data for identifying revision of index hip replacement was modest.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets