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
. 2023 Feb 6;13(2):e069244.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069244.

Accuracy of efficient data methods to determine the incidence of hospital-acquired thrombosis and major bleeding in medical and surgical inpatients: a multicentre observational cohort study in four UK hospitals

Daniel Horner  1   2 , Saleema Rex  3 , Charles Reynard  4 , Matthew Bursnall  3 , Mike Bradburn  3 , Kerstin de Wit  5   6 , Steve Goodacre  7 , Beverley J Hunt  8
Affiliations
Observational Study

Accuracy of efficient data methods to determine the incidence of hospital-acquired thrombosis and major bleeding in medical and surgical inpatients: a multicentre observational cohort study in four UK hospitals

Daniel Horner et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: We evaluated the accuracy of using routine health service data to identify hospital-acquired thrombosis (HAT) and major bleeding events (MBE) compared with a reference standard of case note review.

Design: A multicentre observational cohort study.

Setting: Four acute hospitals in the UK.

Participants: A consecutive unselective cohort of general medical and surgical patients requiring hospitalisation for a period of >24 hours during the calendar year 2021. We excluded paediatric, obstetric and critical care patients due to differential risk profiles.

Interventions: We compared preidentified sources of routinely collected information (using hospital coding data and local contractually mandated thrombosis datasets) to data extracted from case notes using a predesigned workflow methodology.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: We defined HAT as objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism occurring during hospital stay or within 90 days of discharge and MBE as per international consensus.

Results: We were able to source all necessary routinely collected outcome data for 87% of 2008 case episodes reviewed. The sensitivity of hospital coding data (International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision, ICD-10) for the diagnosis of HAT and MBE was 62% (95% CI, 54 to 69) and 38% (95% CI, 27 to 50), respectively. Sensitivity improved to 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) when using local thrombosis data sets.

Conclusions: Using routinely collected data appeared to miss a substantial proportion of outcome events, when compared with case note review. Our study suggests that currently available routine data collection methods in the UK are inadequate to support efficient study designs in venous thromboembolism research.

Trial registration number: NIHR127454.

Keywords: anticoagulation; risk management; thromboembolism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: During the completion of this study, SG, DH, CR, BJH, MBu and MB received funding from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) for academic work in this area, through competitive grant application and CR was appointed to an NIHR doctoral research fellow position. Following the completion of this study, CR has been subsequently employed by Pfizer limited. Pfizer did not fund nor support this study and was not involved in drafting or revising this manuscript.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Raskob GE, Angchaisuksiri P, Blanco AN, et al. . Thrombosis: a major contributor to global disease burden. Semin Thromb Hemost 2014;40:724–35. 10.1055/s-0034-1390325 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heit JA, O’Fallon WM, Petterson TM, et al. . Relative impact of risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1245–8. 10.1001/archinte.162.11.1245 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Horner D, Goodacre S, Davis S, et al. . Which is the best model to assess risk for venous thromboembolism in hospitalised patients? BMJ 2021;373:n1106. 10.1136/bmj.n1106 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Riley RD, Ensor J, Snell KIE, et al. . External validation of clinical prediction models using big datasets from e-health records or IPD meta-analysis: opportunities and challenges. BMJ 2016;353:i3140. 10.1136/bmj.i3140 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 2014;35:1925–31. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu207 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types