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
Observational Study
. 2019 Jun 21;9(6):e025372.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025372.

Observational study to determine the utility of hospital administrative data to support case finding of English patients at higher risk of severe healthcare-related harm

Helen Hogan  1 , Nora Cooke-O'Dowd  2 , Kaushik Chattopadhyay  1 , Jan van der Meulen  1 , Christopher Sherlaw-Johnson  2 , Nick Black  1
Affiliations
Observational Study

Observational study to determine the utility of hospital administrative data to support case finding of English patients at higher risk of severe healthcare-related harm

Helen Hogan et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To identify ways of using routine hospital data to improve the efficiency of retrospective reviews of case records for identifying avoidable severe harm DESIGN: Development and testing of thresholds and criteria for two indirect indicators of healthcare-related harm (long length of stay (LOS) and emergency readmission) to determine the yield of specified harms coded in Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Setting: Acute National Health Service hospitals in England.

Participants: HES for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), bowel cancer surgery and hip replacement admissions from 2014 to 2015.

Interventions: Case-mix-adjusted linear regression models were used to determine expected LOS. Different thresholds were examined to determine the association with harm. Screening criteria for readmission included time to readmission, length of readmission and diagnoses in initial admission and readmission. The association with harm was examined for each criterion.

Results: The proportions of AMI cases with a harm code increased from 14% among all cases to 47% if a threshold of three times the expected LOS was used. For hip replacement the respective increase was from 10% to 51%. However as the number of patients at these higher thresholds was small, the overall proportion of harm identified is relatively small (15%, 19%, 9% and 8% among AMI, urgent bowel surgery, elective bowel surgery and hip replacement cohorts, respectively). Selection of the time to readmission had an effect on the yield of harms but this varied with condition. At least 50% of surgical patients had a harm code if readmitted within 7 days compared with 21% of patients with AMI.

Conclusions: Our approach would select a substantial number of patients for case record review. Many of these cases would contain no evidence of healthcare-related harm. In practice, Trusts may choose how many reviews it is feasible to do in advance and then select random samples of cases that satisfy the screening criteria.

Keywords: case finding; healthcare-related harm; hospital administrative data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Prevalence of harm by length of stay. AMI, acute myocardial infarction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportions of cases with direct indicators of harm reported in the first episode of the readmission spell by time to readmission. AMI, acute myocardial infarction.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Aylin P, Tanna S, Bottle A, et al. . How often are adverse events reported in English hospital statistics? BMJ 2004;329:369 10.1136/bmj.329.7462.369 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Australian Institute for Health and Welfare. Reporting of adverse event in routinely collected data sets in Australia: Australian Institute for Health and Welfare, 2001.
    1. Sari AB, Sheldon TA, Cracknell A, et al. . Extent, nature and consequences of adverse events: results of a retrospective casenote review in a large NHS hospital. Qual Saf Health Care 2007;16:434–9. 10.1136/qshc.2006.021154 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker GR, Norton PG, Flintoft V, et al. . The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ 2004;170:1678–86. 10.1503/cmaj.1040498 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Davis P, Lay-Yee R, Briant R, et al. . Adverse events in New Zealand public hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J 2002;115:U271. - PubMed

Publication types