Quality of MBSAQIP data: bad luck, or lack of QA plan?
- PMID: 31190225
- DOI: 10.1007/s00464-019-06884-x
Quality of MBSAQIP data: bad luck, or lack of QA plan?
Abstract
Background: National clinical registries are commonly used in clinical research, quality improvement, and health policy. However, little is known about methodological challenges associated with these registry analyses that could limit their impact and compromise patient safety. This study examined the quality of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MSBASQIP) data to assess its usability potential and improve data collection methodologies.
Methods: We developed a single flat file (n = 168,093) using five subsets (Main, BMI, Readmission, Reoperation, and Intervention) of the 2015 MBSAQIP Participant User Data File (PUF). Logic and validity tests included (1) individual profiles of patient's body mass index (BMI) changes over time, (2) individual patient care pathways, and (3) correlation analysis between variable pairs associated with the same clinical encounters.
Results: 8888 (5.3%) patients did not have postoperative weight/BMI data; 20% of patients had different units for preoperative and postoperative weights. Postoperative weight measurements ranged between - 71 and 132% of preoperative weight. There were 325 (3.7%) hospital readmissions reported on the day of or day after MBS. The self-reporting of "emergency" vs. "planned" interventions did not correlate with the type of procedure and its indication. Up to 20% of data could potentially be unused for analysis due to data quality issues.
Conclusions: Our analysis revealed various data quality issues in the 2015 MBSAQIP PUF related to completeness, accuracy, and consistency. Since information on where the surgery was performed is lacking, it is not possible to conclude whether these issues represent data errors, patient outliers, or inappropriate care. Including automated data checks and biomedical informatics oversight, standardized coding for complications, additional de-identified facility and provider information, and training/mentorship opportunities in data informatics for all researchers who get access to the data have been shown to be effective in improving data quality and minimizing patient safety concerns.
Keywords: Bariatric surgery; Data quality; MBSAQIP PUF; Surgical outcomes.
Similar articles
-
Thirty-day outcomes of sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: first report based on Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database.Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018 May;14(5):545-551. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2018.01.011. Epub 2018 Jan 13. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2018. PMID: 29551470
-
MBSAQIP database: are the data reliable?Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2024 Feb;20(2):160-164. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2023.08.018. Epub 2023 Sep 4. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2024. PMID: 37778942
-
Bariatric Surgery Registries: Can They Contribute to Improved Outcomes?Curr Obes Rep. 2017 Dec;6(4):414-419. doi: 10.1007/s13679-017-0286-3. Curr Obes Rep. 2017. PMID: 29076029 Review.
-
Perioperative Outcomes of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Sleeve Gastrectomy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: an Analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) Database.Obes Surg. 2020 Jan;30(1):111-118. doi: 10.1007/s11695-019-04175-x. Obes Surg. 2020. PMID: 31598899 Free PMC article.
-
Evidence Review Conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery: Focus on Anesthesiology for Bariatric Surgery.Anesth Analg. 2019 Jul;129(1):51-60. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003696. Anesth Analg. 2019. PMID: 30113392 Review.
Cited by
-
Correlating actual one-year weight loss with predicted weight loss by the MBSAQIP: bariatric surgical risk/benefit calculator.Surg Endosc. 2021 Oct;35(10):5705-5708. doi: 10.1007/s00464-020-08030-4. Epub 2020 Sep 23. Surg Endosc. 2021. PMID: 32968922
-
First Assistant In Bariatric Surgery: A Comparison Between Laparoscopic And Robotic Approaches: A 4-Year Analysis of the MBSAQIP Database (2016-2019).Obes Surg. 2024 Mar;34(3):866-873. doi: 10.1007/s11695-023-06996-3. Epub 2023 Dec 19. Obes Surg. 2024. PMID: 38114775
-
Role of Robotic Surgery in Complex Revisional Bariatric Procedures.Obes Surg. 2021 Jun;31(6):2583-2589. doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05272-6. Epub 2021 Mar 1. Obes Surg. 2021. PMID: 33646519
-
Safety of Primary Versus Revisional Biliopancreatic Diversion with Duodenal Switch in Patients with Super Obesity Using the MBSAQIP database.Obes Surg. 2022 May;32(5):1459-1465. doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-05953-w. Epub 2022 Feb 8. Obes Surg. 2022. PMID: 35137289
-
Missing something? A scoping review of venous thromboembolic events and their associations with bariatric surgery. Refining the evidence base.Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020 Aug 17;59:264-273. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.08.014. eCollection 2020 Nov. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020. PMID: 33133579 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials