Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Administrative data is as good as medical chart review for comorbidity ascertainment in patients with infections in Singapore

  • J. HWANG (a1), A. CHOW (a2) (a3), D. C. LYE (a1) (a4) and C. S. WONG (a2) (a3)

Summary

The Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) is widely used for control of confounding from comorbidities in epidemiological studies. International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-coded diagnoses from administrative hospital databases is potentially an efficient way of deriving CCI. However, no studies have evaluated its validity in infectious disease research. We aim to compare CCI derived from administrative data and medical record review in predicting mortality in patients with infections. We conducted a cross-sectional study on 199 inpatients. Correlation analyses were used to compare comorbidity scores from ICD-coded administrative databases and medical record review. Multivariable regression models were constructed and compared for discriminatory power for 30-day in-hospital mortality. Overall agreement was fair [weighted kappa 0·33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·23–0·43]. Kappa coefficient ranged from 0·17 (95% CI 0·01–0·36) for myocardial infarction to 0·85 (95% CI 0·59–1·00) for connective tissue disease. Administrative data-derived CCI was predictive of CCI ⩾5 from medical record review, controlling for age, gender, resident status, ward class, clinical speciality, illness severity, and infection source (C = 0·773). Using the multivariable model comprising age, gender, resident status, ward class, clinical speciality, illness severity, and infection source to predict 30-day in-hospital mortality, administrative data-derived CCI (C = 0·729) provided a similar C statistic as medical record review (C = 0·717, P = 0·8548). In conclusion, administrative data-derived CCI can be used for assessing comorbidities and confounding control in infectious disease research.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Administrative data is as good as medical chart review for comorbidity ascertainment in patients with infections in Singapore
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Administrative data is as good as medical chart review for comorbidity ascertainment in patients with infections in Singapore
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Administrative data is as good as medical chart review for comorbidity ascertainment in patients with infections in Singapore
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

* Author for correspondence: Dr J. Hwang, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119228. (Email: jeff_yf_hwang@nuhs.edu.sg)

References

Hide All
1. Wong, DT, Knaus, WA. Predicting outcome in critical care: the current status of the APACHE prognostic scoring system. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 1991; 38: 374383.
2. Vincent, JL, et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on ‘sepsis-related problems’ of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Critical Care Medicine 1998; 26: 17931800.
3. Marshall, JC, et al. Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Critical Care Medicine 1995; 23: 16381652.
4. Charlson, ME, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987; 40: 373383.
5. Oltean, S, et al. Charlson's weighted index of comorbidities is useful in assessing the risk of death in septic patients. Journal of Critical Care 2012; 27: 370375.
6. Elixhauser, A, et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Medical Care 1998; 36: 827.
7. Ladha, KS, et al. The Deyo-Charlson and Elixhauser-van Walraven Comorbidity Indices as predictors of mortality in critically ill patients. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e008990.
8. Januel, JM, et al. Improved accuracy of co-morbidity coding over time after the introduction of ICD-10 administrative data. BMC Health Services Research 2011; 11: 194.
9. Deyo, RA, et al. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992; 45: 613619.
10. Quan, H, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Medical Care 2005; 43: 11301139.
11. Thygesen, SK, et al. The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011; 11: 83.
12. Kieszak, SM, et al. A comparison of the Charlson comorbidity index derived from medical record data and administrative billing data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1999; 52: 137142.
13. Chong, WF, et al. A comparison of comorbidities obtained from hospital administrative data and medical charts in older patients with pneumonia. BMC Health Services Research 2011; 11: 105.
14. Goldstein, LB, et al. Charlson Index comorbidity adjustment for ischemic stroke outcome studies. Stroke 2004; 35: 19411945.
15. Johnston, MC, et al. Charlson index scores from administrative data and case-note review compared favourably in a renal disease cohort. European Journal of Public Health 2015; 25: 391396.
16. Luthi, JC, et al. Administrative data outperformed single-day chart review for comorbidity measure. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007; 19: 225231.
17. Leal, JR, Laupland, KB. Validity of ascertainment of co-morbid illness using administrative databases: a systematic review. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2010; 16: 715721.

Keywords

Administrative data is as good as medical chart review for comorbidity ascertainment in patients with infections in Singapore

  • J. HWANG (a1), A. CHOW (a2) (a3), D. C. LYE (a1) (a4) and C. S. WONG (a2) (a3)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed