Dataset Information

Are medical record front page data suitable for risk adjustment in hospital performance measurement? Development and validation of a risk model of in-hospital mortality after acute myocardial infarction.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop a model of in-hospital mortality using medical record front page (MRFP) data and assess its validity in case-mix standardisation by comparison with a model developed using the complete medical record data.

Design

A nationally representative retrospective study.

Setting

Representative hospitals in China, covering 161 hospitals in modelling cohort and 156 hospitals in validation cohort.

Participants

Representative patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction. 8370 patients in modelling cohort and 9704 patients in validation cohort.

Primary outcome measures

In-hospital mortality, which was defined explicitly as death that occurred during hospitalisation, and the hospital-level risk standardised mortality rate (RSMR).

Results

A total of 14 variables were included in the model predicting in-hospital mortality based on MRFP data, with the area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 among modelling cohort and 0.79 among validation cohort. The median of absolute difference between the hospital RSMR predicted by hierarchical generalised linear models established based on MRFP data and complete medical record data, which was built as 'reference model', was 0.08% (10th and 90th percentiles: -1.8% and 1.6%). In the regression model comparing the RSMR between two models, the slope and intercept of the regression equation is 0.90 and 0.007 in modelling cohort, while 0.85 and 0.010 in validation cohort, which indicated that the evaluation capability from two models were very similar.

Conclusions

The models based on MRFP data showed good discrimination and calibration capability, as well as similar risk prediction effect in comparison with the model based on complete medical record data, which proved that MRFP data could be suitable for risk adjustment in hospital performance measurement.

SUBMITTER: Wu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8043007 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite recent improvements in survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), U.S. hospitals vary 2-fold in their 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs). Nevertheless, information is limited on hospital-level factors that may be associated with RSMRs.To identify hospital strategies that were associated with lower RSMRs.Cross-sectional survey of 537 hospitals (91% response rate) and weighted multivariate regression by using data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine the associations between hospital strategies and hospital RSMRs.Acute care hospitals with an annualized AMI volume of at least 25 patients.Patients hospitalized with AMI between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009.Hospital performance improvement strategies, characteristics, and 30-day RSMRs.In multivariate analysis, several hospital strategies were significantly associated with lower RSMRs and in aggregate were associated with clinically important differences in RSMRs. These strategies included holding monthly meetings to review AMI cases between hospital clinicians and staff who transported patients to the hospital (RSMR lower by 0.70 percentage points), having cardiologists always on site (lower by 0.54 percentage points), fostering an organizational environment in which clinicians are encouraged to solve problems creatively (lower by 0.84 percentage points), not cross-training nurses from intensive care units for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (lower by 0.44 percentage points), and having physician and nurse champions rather than nurse champions alone (lower by 0.88 percentage points). Fewer than 10% of hospitals reported using at least 4 of these 5 strategies.The cross-sectional design demonstrates statistical associations but cannot establish causal relationships.Several strategies, which are currently implemented by relatively few hospitals, are associated with significantly lower 30-day RSMRs for patients with AMI.The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the United Health Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund.

Project description:ImportanceStudies of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) occurring outside the hospital have informed approaches to addressing risk, treatment, and patient outcomes. Similar insights for in-hospital AMI are lacking.ObjectiveTo determine the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with in-hospital AMI.Design, setting, and participantsCohort, nested case-control, and matched cohort study of patients hospitalized in US Veterans Health Administration facilities between July 2007 and September 2009. The incidence of in-hospital AMI was determined from a complete cohort of in-hospital AMI relative to the total number of inpatient admissions. From the in-hospital AMI cohort, detailed medical record review was performed on 687 cases and 687 individually matched controls. Risk factors and outcomes associated with in-hospital AMI were determined from matched comparison of in-hospital AMI cases to hospitalized controls.ExposuresCandidate risk factors for in-hospital AMI included characteristics at the time of admission and in-hospital variables prior to the index date.Main outcomes and measuresIn the determination of the incidence and risk factors associated with in-hospital AMI, the outcome of interest was in-hospital AMI. All-cause mortality was the main outcome of interest following in-hospital AMI.ResultsA total of 5556 patients with in-hospital AMI (mean [SD] age, 73 [10] years; 5456 [98.2%] male) were identified among 1.3 million admissions, with an incidence of 4.27 in-hospital AMI events per 1000 admissions. Independent risk factors associated with in-hospital AMI included intensive care unit setting, history of coronary artery disease, heart rate greater than 100 beats/min, hemoglobin level less than 8 g/dL, and white blood cell count 14 000/μL or greater. Compared with the matched control group, mortality was significantly higher for patients with in-hospital AMI (in-hospital mortality, 26.4% vs 4.2%; 30-day mortality, 33.0% vs 10.0%; 1-year mortality, 59.2% vs 34.4%).Conclusions and relevanceIn-hospital AMI was common and associated with common cardiovascular risk factors and markers of acute illness. Patient outcomes following in-hospital AMI were poor, with 1-year mortality approaching 60%. Further study of in-hospital AMI may yield opportunities to reduce in-hospital AMI risk and improve patient outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Little information is available on how primary and comorbid acute myocardial infarction contribute to the mortality burden of acute myocardial infarction, the share of these deaths that occur during or after a hospital admission, and the reasons for hospital admission of those who died from acute myocardial infarction. Our aim was to fill in these gaps in the knowledge about deaths and hospital admissions due to acute myocardial infarction. METHODS:We used individually linked national hospital admission and mortality data for England from 2006 to 2010 to identify all primary and comorbid diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction during hospital stay and their associated fatality rates (during or within 28 days of being in hospital). Data were obtained from the UK Small Area Health Statistics Unit and supplied by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (now NHS Digital) and the Office of National Statistics. We calculated event rates (reported as per 100?000 population for relevant age and sex groups) and case-fatality rate for primary acute myocardial infarction diagnosed during the first physician encounter or during subsequent encounters, and acute myocardial infarction diagnosed only as a comorbidity. We also calculated what proportion of deaths from acute myocardial infarction occurred in people who had been in hospital on or within the 28 days preceding death, and whether acute myocardial infarction was one of the recorded diagnoses in such admissions. FINDINGS:Acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in the first physician encounter in 307?496 (69%) of 446?744 admissions with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, in the second or later physician encounter in 52?374 (12%) admissions, and recorded only as a comorbidity in 86?874 (19%) admissions. Patients with comorbid diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction had two to three times the case-fatality rate of patients in whom acute myocardial infarction was a primary diagnosis. 135?950 deaths were recorded as being caused by acute myocardial infarction as the underlying cause of death, of which 66?490 (49%) occurred in patients who were in hospital on the day of death or in the 28 days preceding death. AMI was the primary diagnosis in 32?695 (49%) of these 66?490 patients (27?678 [42%] diagnosed in the first physician encounter and 5017 [8%] in a second or subsequent encounter), was a comorbid diagnosis in 12?118 (18%), and was not mentioned at all in the remaining 21?677 (33%). The most common causes of admission in people who did not have an acute myocardial infarction diagnosis but went on to die of acute myocardial infarction as the underlying cause of death were other circulatory conditions (7566 [35%] of 21?677 deaths), symptomatic diagnoses including non-specific chest pain, dyspnoea and syncope (1368 [6%] deaths), and respiratory disorders (2662 [12%] deaths), mainly pneumonia and chronic obstructive airways disease. INTERPRETATION:As many acute myocardial infarction deaths occurring within 28 days of being in hospital follow a non-acute myocardial infarction admission as follow an acute myocardial infarction admission. These people are often diagnosed with other circulatory disorders or symptoms of circulatory disturbance. Further investigation is needed to establish whether there are symptoms and information that can be used to predict the risk of a fatal acute myocardial infarction in such patients, which can contribute to reducing the mortality burden of acute myocardial infarction. FUNDING:Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Public Health England, National Institute for Health Research.