Establishing risk-adjusted quality indicators in surgery using administrative data—an example from neurosurgery
- 35 Downloads
The current draft of the German Hospital Structure Law requires remuneration to incorporate quality indicators. For neurosurgery, several quality indicators have been discussed, such as 30-day readmission, reoperation, or mortality rates; the rates of infections; or the length of stay. When comparing neurosurgical departments regarding these indicators, very heterogeneous patient spectrums complicate benchmarking due to the lack of risk adjustment.
In this study, we performed an analysis of quality indicators and possible risk adjustment, based only on administrative data.
All adult patients that were treated as inpatients for a brain or spinal tumour at our neurosurgical department between 2013 and 2017 were assessed for the abovementioned quality indicators. DRG-related data such as relative weight, PCCL (patient clinical complexity level), ICD-10 major diagnosis category, secondary diagnoses, age and sex were obtained. The age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was calculated. Logistic regression analyses were performed in order to correlate quality indicators with administrative data.
Overall, 2623 cases were enrolled into the study. Most patients were treated for glioma (n = 1055, 40.2%). The CCI did not correlate with the quality indicators, whereas PCCL showed a positive correlation with 30-day readmission and reoperation, SSI and nosocomial infection rates.
All previously discussed quality indicators are easily derived from administrative data. Administrative data alone might not be sufficient for adequate risk adjustment as they do not reflect the endogenous risk of the patient and are influenced by certain complications during inpatient stay. Appropriate concepts for risk adjustment should be compiled on the basis of prospectively designed registry studies.
KeywordsQuality indicators Neurosurgery Readmission Reoperation Risk adjustment Administrative data
Compliance with ethical standard
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This study was approved by the local ethic committee. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
- 3.Buhr HJ, Hardt J, Klinger C, Seyfried F, Wiegering A, Dietrich A, Bartsch DK, Lorenz D, Post S, Germer CT, Keck T, Wellner U (2018) Quality indicators with reference values and threshold limits in general and visceral surgery : for obesity and metabolic, pancreatic, colon carcinoma and rectal carcinoma surgery. Chirurg 89:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0562-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Glassman S, Carreon LY, Andersen M, Asher A, Eiskjaer S, Gehrchen M, Imagama S, Ishii K, Kaito T, Matsuyama Y, Moridaira H, Mummaneni P, Shaffrey C, Matsumoto M (2017) Predictors of hospital readmission and surgical site infection in the United States, Denmark, and Japan: is risk stratification a universal language? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:1311–1315. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Heller G (2008) Zur Messung und Darstellung von medizinischer Ergebnisqualität mit administrativen Routinedaten in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz:1173–1182Google Scholar
- 14.Ingraham A, Nathens A, Peitzman A, Bode A, Dorlac G, Dorlac W, Miller P, Sadeghi M, Wasserman DD, Bilimoria K, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Emergency General Surgery Quality Indicator Development Expert P (2017) Assessment of emergency general surgery care based on formally developed quality indicators. Surgery 162:397–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.03.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Marventano S, Grosso G, Mistretta A, Bogusz-Czerniewicz M, Ferranti R, Nolfo F, Giorgianni G, Rametta S, Drago F, Basile F, Biondi A (2014) Evaluation of four comorbidity indices and Charlson comorbidity index adjustment for colorectal cancer patients. Int J Color Dis 29:1159–1169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1972-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Schmidt HM, Gisbertz SS, Moons J, Rouvelas I, Kauppi J, Brown A, Asti E, Luyer M, Lagarde SM, Berlth F, Philippron A, Bruns C, Holscher A, Schneider PM, Raptis DA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Nafteux P, Nilsson M, Rasanen J, Palazzo F, Rosato E, Mercer S, Bonavina L, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Wijnhoven BPL, Schroder W, Pattyn P, Grimminger PP, Gutschow CA (2017) Defining benchmarks for transthoracic esophagectomy: a multicenter analysis of Total minimally invasive esophagectomy in low risk patients. Ann Surg 266:814–821. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.The Society of British Neurological Surgeons (2018) Neurosurgical National Audit Programme. Accessed 1407.2018 2018Google Scholar
- 27.Wiegering A, Wellner U, Seyfried F, Hardt J, Klinger C, Buhr H, Post S (2017) MTL30 as surrogate parameter for quality of surgically treated diseases : establishment based on the StuDoQ register of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery. Chirurg 88:977–982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0479-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Yang CC, Chen PC, Hsu CW, Chang SL, Lee CC (2015) Validity of the age-adjusted charlson comorbidity index on clinical outcomes for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer post radiation treatment: a 5-year nationwide cohort study. PLoS One 10:e0117323. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar