Dataset Information

Improving Hospital Reporting of Patient Race and Ethnicity--Approaches to Data Auditing.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate new metrics to improve the reporting of patient race and ethnicity (R/E) by hospitals.

Data sources

California Patient Discharge Database (PDD) and birth registry, 2008-2009, Healthcare and Cost Utilization Project's State Inpatient Database, 2008-2011, cancer registry 2000-2008, and 2010 US Census Summary File 2.

Study design

We examined agreement between hospital reported R/E versus self-report among mothers delivering babies and a cancer cohort in California. Metrics were created to measure root mean squared differences (RMSD) by hospital between reported R/E distribution and R/E estimates using R/E distribution within each patient's zip code of residence. RMSD comparisons were made to corresponding "gold standard" facility-level measures within the maternal cohort for California and six comparison states.

Data collection

Maternal birth hospitalization (linked to the state birth registry) and cancer cohort records linked to preceding and subsequent hospitalizations. Hospital discharges were linked to the corresponding Census zip code tabulation area using patient zip code.

Principal findings

Overall agreement between the PDD and the gold standard for the maternal cohort was 86 percent for the combined R/E measure and 71 percent for race alone. The RMSD measure is modestly correlated with the summary level gold standard measure for R/E (r = 0.44). The RMSD metric revealed general improvement in data agreement and completeness across states. "Other" and "unknown" categories were inconsistently applied within inpatient databases.

Conclusions

Comparison between reported R/E and R/E estimates using zip code level data may be a reasonable first approach to evaluate and track hospital R/E reporting. Further work should focus on using more granular geocoded data for estimates and tracking data to improve hospital collection of R/E data.

SUBMITTER: Zingmond DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4545337 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving Hospital Reporting of Patient Race and Ethnicity--Approaches to Data Auditing.

Zingmond David S DS Parikh Punam P Louie Rachel R Lichtensztajn Daphne Y DY Ponce Ninez N Hasnain-Wynia Romana R Gomez Scarlett Lin SL

Health services research 20150615

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate new metrics to improve the reporting of patient race and ethnicity (R/E) by hospitals.<h4>Data sources</h4>California Patient Discharge Database (PDD) and birth registry, 2008-2009, Healthcare and Cost Utilization Project's State Inpatient Database, 2008-2011, cancer registry 2000-2008, and 2010 US Census Summary File 2.<h4>Study design</h4>We examined agreement between hospital reported R/E versus self-report among mothers delivering babies and a cancer cohort i ...[more]

PMID: 26077950

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors.MethodsWe analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively.FindingsAmong 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials.InterpretationOver the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time.FundingStanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.

Project description:ContextDuring 1994-1997, approximately 70% and 60% of the cases of conditions reported to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System included persons of known race and ethnicity, respectively. A major goal of the Healthy People 2020 initiative is to eliminate health disparities.ObjectiveTo describe trends in the completeness of race and ethnicity in case reports of the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System during 2006-2010.MethodsThe National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System is a public health surveillance system that aggregates case reports of infectious diseases and conditions that are designated nationally notifiable and are collected by US states and territories. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, Georgia) maintains this surveillance system in collaboration with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. We used Cochran-Armitage Trend Test (SAS, version 9.2) to test the hypothesis that the percentage of case reports with the completeness of race and ethnicity data increased or decreased linearly during 2006-2010.Main outcome measureCompleteness of race and ethnicity variables.ResultsThe 32 conditions reviewed included 1 030 804 case records. Seventy percent of records included a known value for race, and 49% of records included ethnicity during 2006-2010. During 2006-2010, race was known in 70% or more of records in 24 of 32 conditions and in 23 of 51 jurisdictions. During 2006-2010, the systemwide reporting of race remained at the same level of completeness (70%) but the reporting of ethnicity increased slightly from 48% in 2006 to 53% in 2010. In comparison with race, the proportions of records coded to ethnicity were less among all conditions.ConclusionsSignificant change has occurred in the completeness of reporting of ethnicity but not race during 2006-2010. However, the reporting of ethnicity still lags substantially behind the reporting of race. Jurisdictions that identify conditions with lower rates of completeness of race and ethnicity can assess the net benefits of efforts to improve the completeness of race and ethnicity data.

Project description:Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen's Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen's Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting.

Dataset Information

Improving Hospital Reporting of Patient Race and Ethnicity--Approaches to Data Auditing.

Objective

Data sources

Study design

Data collection

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

Improving Hospital Reporting of Patient Race and Ethnicity--Approaches to Data Auditing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets