Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Aug 14;8(8):e70825.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070825. eCollection 2013.

Validity of physician billing claims to identify deceased organ donors in large healthcare databases

Alvin Ho-ting Li  1 , S Joseph Kim, Jagadish Rangrej, Damon C Scales, Salimah Shariff, Donald A Redelmeier, Greg Knoll, Ann Young, Amit X Garg
Affiliations

Validity of physician billing claims to identify deceased organ donors in large healthcare databases

Alvin Ho-ting Li et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the validity of physician billing claims to identify deceased organ donors in large provincial healthcare databases.

Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective validation study of all deceased donors in Ontario, Canada from 2006 to 2011 (n = 988). We included all registered deaths during the same period (n = 458,074). Our main outcome measures included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of various algorithms consisting of physician billing claims to identify deceased organ donors and organ-specific donors compared to a reference standard of medical chart abstraction.

Results: The best performing algorithm consisted of any one of 10 different physician billing claims. This algorithm had a sensitivity of 75.4% (95% CI: 72.6% to 78.0%) and a positive predictive value of 77.4% (95% CI: 74.7% to 80.0%) for the identification of deceased organ donors. As expected, specificity and negative predictive value were near 100%. The number of organ donors identified by the algorithm each year was similar to the expected value, and this included the pre-validation period (1991 to 2005). Algorithms to identify organ-specific donors performed poorly (e.g. sensitivity ranged from 0% for small intestine to 67% for heart; positive predictive values ranged from 0% for small intestine to 37% for heart).

Interpretation: Primary data abstraction to identify deceased organ donors should be used whenever possible, particularly for the detection of organ-specific donations. The limitations of physician billing claims should be considered whenever they are used.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of deceased organ donors per year from 1991 to 2010 in Ontario.
Expected (blue line) represents the number of deceased organ donors as reported by the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. Identified (red line) represents the number of deceased organ donors as reported by our physician billing algorithm. Reference (green line) represents the number of deceased organ donors as reported by manual chart reviews from 2006 to 2010.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abouna GM (2008) Organ Shortage Crisis: Problems and Possible Solutions. Transplantation Proceedings 40: 34–38 doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.11.067 - DOI - PubMed
    1. CIHI - e-Statistics Report on Transplant, Waiting List and Donor Statistics (2011) (n.d.). Available: http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/en/document/typesofcare/spec.... Accessed 2013 Mar 4.
    1. Schold JD, Segev DL (2012) Increasing the pool of deceased donor organs for kidney transplantation. Nature Reviews Nephrology 8: 325–331. - PubMed
    1. Garcia-Valdecasas JC (2012) European approach to increasing organ donation: European Union donor card, presumed consent, and other innovations. Liver Transplantation 18: S8–S9 doi:10.1002/lt.23538 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benchimol EI, Manuel DG, To T, Griffiths AM, Rabeneck L, et al. (2011) Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 821–829 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.006 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types