Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 135–143 | Cite as

Agreement assessment of key maternal and newborn data elements between birth registry and Clinical Administrative Hospital Databases in Ontario, Canada

  • Qun MiaoEmail author
  • Deshayne B. Fell
  • Sandra Dunn
  • Ann E. Sprague
General Gynecology
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Since 2012, BORN Ontario, a maternal-newborn registry, has collected data on every birth in Ontario. To ensure data quality, we assessed the reliability of key elements collected in BORN by comparing these with like data elements in the Canadian Institute for Health Information-Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD).

Methods

We used provincial health card numbers to deterministically link live or stillbirth records and their corresponding mothers’ records in the BORN database to the CIHI-DAD in the fiscal years 2012–2013 to 2014–2015. Percentage agreement and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement on main elements in both databases.

Results

The percentage agreement and Kappa coefficients were 99.98% and 0.740 (95% CI: 0.677–0.803) on live/stillbirth, respectively. The Kappa coefficients for infant sex, gestational age at birth, induction of labour, and caesarean birth were 0.989 (95% CI: 0.988–0.989), 0.920 (95% CI: 0.919–0.920), 0.782 (95% CI: 0.780–0.785), and 0.995 (95% CI: 0.995–0.996), respectively. Kappa agreement for the number of fetuses in a pregnancy was 0.979 (95% CI: 0.977–0.981). Percentage agreement was very high for infants’ birthdates (99.9%), infant postal codes (91.8%), infants’ birth weight in grams (95.5%), and mothers’ dates of birth (99.1%).

Conclusions

Overall, the BORN and CIHI-DAD databases had concordance on key birth and maternal data elements; however, additional work is needed to understand discrepancies identified.

Keywords

The BORN database The Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD) Data quality Agreement Kappa test 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all BORN staff, especially Ms. Jessica Reszel, Ms. Catherine Riddell, Ms. Farzana Yasmin, Ms. Vivian Holmberg, Dr. Jill Wiley and Dr. Mary (Yanfang) Guo for their excellent comments and editing on this manuscript. We also thank CIHI for providing the CIHI-DAD data to BORN.

Author contributions

Q Miao: project development, data management and analysis, manuscript writing and editing. DB Fell: project development, manuscript writing and editing. S Dunn: manuscript writing and editing. AE Sprague: project development, manuscript writing and editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by CIHI. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the author(s), and not necessarily CIHI.

Ethical approval

As a quality assurance project, this data quality assessment was exempt from Research Ethics Board review in Canada.

References

  1. 1.
    Sprague AE, Sidney D, Darling EK, Wagner V, Soderstrom B, Rogers J, Graves E, Coyle D, Sumner A, Holmberg V, Khan B, Walker MC (2018) Outcomes for the first year of Ontario’s Birth Center demonstration project. J Midwifery Womens Health 63(5):532–540.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunn S, Sprague AE, Grimshaw JM, Graham ID, Taljaard M, Fell D, Peterson WE, Darling E, Harrold J, Smith GN, Reszel J, Lanes A, Truskoski C, Wilding J, Weiss D, Walker M (2016) A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol. Implement Sci 11:59.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0427-13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunn S, Sprague A, Fell D, Dy J, Harrold J, Lamontagne B, Walker M (2013) The use of a quality indicator to reduce elective repeat caesarean section for low-risk women before 39 weeks’ gestation: the Eastern Ontario Experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(4):306–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30957-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (2016) Data quality study of the 2015–2016 Discharge Abstract Database: a focus on hospital harm 2016. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/DAD_15_16_Reab_Report_EN.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  5. 5.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (1996–2018) Discharge Abstract Database Metadata (DAD). https://www.cihi.ca/en/discharge-abstract-database-metadata. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  6. 6.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (1996–2019). DAD Data Elements 2015–2016. p. 2015–6. https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productSeries.htm?pc=PCC189&_ga=2.107224642.115153162.1540238008-2019196711.1518113758. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  7. 7.
    Dunn S, Bottomley J, Ali A, Walker M (2011) 2008 Niday perinatal database quality audit: report of a quality assurance project. Chronic Dis Inj Can 32(1):32–42Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    BORN Ontario (2013) BORN Data Quality Framework. https://datadictionary.bornontario.ca/data-quality/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  9. 9.
    Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2015) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37(5):360–363Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Government of Canada (2014) Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. https://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/default/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  12. 12.
    Frosst G, Hutcheon J, Joseph KS, Kinniburgh B, Johnson C, Lee L (2015) Validating the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry: a chart re-abstraction study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15(1):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0563-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joseph KS, Fahey J (2009) Validation of perinatal data in the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Chronic Dis Can 29(3):96–100Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Statistics Canada (2005) Data quality, concepts and methodology, Database, Vital Statistics - Stillbirth. 2002. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/84f0211x/2005000/4153052-eng.htm. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  15. 15.
    Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information (2014) Provincial standard related to stillborn abstracting. https://www.nlchi.nl.ca/images/PDFs/Provincial%20Standard%20for%20Stillborn%20Abstracting%202014.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  16. 16.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (2015) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. https://www.cihi.ca/en/icd_volume_one_2015_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  17. 17.
    Hanley GE, Munro S, Greyson D, Gross MM, Hundley V, Spiby H, Janssen PA (2016) Diagnosing onset of labor: a systematic review of definitions in the research literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 16:71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27039302
  18. 18.
    Lange I, Ab C, Lee L, Bc V, Muise S, On ST (2013) Induction of labour. 296:1–18. https://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/September2013-CPG296-ENG-Online_REV-D.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  19. 19.
    Crane J (2001) Induction of labour at term. J SOGC 23(8):717–728.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0849-5831(16)31465-320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    BORN Ontario (2018) BORN Data Dictionary. https://datadictionary.bornontario.ca/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.
  21. 21.
    Harron K, Dibben C, Boyd J, Hjern A, Azimaee M, Barreto ML, Goldstein H (2017) Challenges in administrative data linkage for research. Big Data Soc 4(2):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717745678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dusetzina SB, Tyree S, Meyer AM, Meyer A, Green L, Carpenter WR (2014) Linking data for health services research: a framework and instructional guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laganà AS, Vitale SG, Sapia F, Valenti G, Corrado F, Padula F, Rapisarda AMC, D’Anna R (2018) miRNA expression for early diagnosis of preeclampsia onset: hope or hype? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 31(6):817–821.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1296426.24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laganà AS, Giordano D, Loddo S, Zoccali G, Vitale SG, Santamaria A, Buemi M, D'Anna R (2017) Decreased Endothelial Progenitor Cells (EPCs) and increased Natural Killer (NK) cells in peripheral blood as possible early markers of preeclampsia: a case-control analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:867–872.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4296-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schimmel MS, Bromiker R, Hammerman C, Chertman L, Ioscovich A, Granovsky-Grisaru S, Samueloff A, Elstein D (2015) The effects of maternal age and parity on maternal and neonatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:793–798.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3469-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BORN OntarioChildren’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO)OttawaCanada
  2. 2.Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  3. 3.School of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  4. 4.Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES)OttawaCanada
  5. 5.School of Nursing, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations