Assessing Patient Safety through Administrative Data: Adapting and Improving Existing Systems Patrick S. Romano, MD MPH Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics UC Davis School of Medicine Sacramento CA, USA June 29, 2006

Acknowledgments Support for Quality Indicators II (Contract No ) Mamatha Pancholi, AHRQ Project Officer Marybeth Farquhar, AHRQ QI Senior Advisor Mark Gritz and Jeffrey Geppert, Project Directors, Battelle Health and Life Sciences Kathryn McDonald (PI) and Sheryl Davies (project manager), Stanford University Kathryn McDonald (PI) and Sheryl Davies (project manager), Stanford University Other clinical team members: Douglas Payne (medicine), Garth Utter (surgery), Shagufta Yasmeen (obstetrics & gynecology), Corinna Haberland (pediatrics), Banafsheh Sadeghi (research assistant) Other clinical team members: Douglas Payne (medicine), Garth Utter (surgery), Shagufta Yasmeen (obstetrics & gynecology), Corinna Haberland (pediatrics), Banafsheh Sadeghi (research assistant)

Overview General approaches to assessing inpatient safety General approaches to assessing inpatient safety Rationale for using administrative data: strengths and limitations Rationale for using administrative data: strengths and limitations Background about the AHRQ Quality Indicators program Background about the AHRQ Quality Indicators program Development and maintenance of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) Development and maintenance of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) OECD international expert panel review OECD international expert panel review International interest in the AHRQ PSIs International interest in the AHRQ PSIs Practical issues associated with international application of the AHRQ PSIs Practical issues associated with international application of the AHRQ PSIs

Taxonomy of patient safety measures Donabedian’sclassificationExamples Structural measures Hospital design Staffing (intensity, training) Decision support systems Safety culture Process measures Medication errors (incorrect dosing, inappropriate use) Medical errors Near misses Outcome measures Adverse events (potentially preventable complications, medical injuries) Zhan et al., Med Care 2005;43:I42-I47

General approaches to assessing inpatient safety Analyze administrative data (adverse events, selected types of medical errors) Analyze administrative data (adverse events, selected types of medical errors) Review medical records (adverse events, selected types of medical errors) Review medical records (adverse events, selected types of medical errors) Collect confidential provider reports of “incidents” or “safety events” (passive surveillance of medical errors or near misses) Collect confidential provider reports of “incidents” or “safety events” (passive surveillance of medical errors or near misses) Conduct active surveillance or real-time observation (same) Conduct active surveillance or real-time observation (same) Survey patients Survey patients Survey employees or managers on organizational capabilities or climate (“culture of safety”) Survey employees or managers on organizational capabilities or climate (“culture of safety”)

Ethnographic observation to identify adverse events and errors Andrews LB, et al. Lancet 1997;349: “Ethnographers trained in qualitative observational research attended regularly scheduled attending rounds, resident work rounds, nursing shift changes, case conferences, and other scheduled meetings” (e.g., M&M conferences, QA meetings) on 3 units at one teaching hospital. 480 of 1047 patients (46%) experienced a mean of 4.5 events

Oakley, E. et al. Pediatrics 2006;117: Video recording to identify errors in pediatric trauma resuscitation Mean of 5.9 errors per resuscitation, with 93% agree- ment between 2 reviewers. Mean of 2.2 errors in each seriously injured child, with 20% capture on medical records

Rationale for using administrative data Limitations Limitations – Limited/no information on processes of care and physiologic measures of severity – Limited/no information on timing (comorbidities vs. adverse events) – Heterogeneous severity within some ICD codes – Accuracy depends on documentation and coding – Data are used for other purposes, subject to gaming – Time lag limits usefulness Opportunities Opportunities – Data availability improving – Coding systems and practices improving – Large data sets optimize precision – Comprehensiveness (all hospitals, all payers) avoids sampling/selection bias – Data are used for other purposes, subject to auditing and monitoring

AHRQ Quality Indicators (QIs) Developed through contracts with UC-Stanford Evidence-based Practice Center Developed through contracts with UC-Stanford Evidence-based Practice Center Use existing hospital discharge data, based on readily available data elements Use existing hospital discharge data, based on readily available data elements Incorporate severity adjustment methods (APR- DRGs, comorbidity groupings) when possible Incorporate severity adjustment methods (APR- DRGs, comorbidity groupings) when possible Offer free, downloadable software (SAS, Windows) with documentation, biennial updates, and user support through listserve, newsletters, national meetings, web seminars, system Offer free, downloadable software (SAS, Windows) with documentation, biennial updates, and user support through listserve, newsletters, national meetings, web seminars, system User feedback drives continuous improvement User feedback drives continuous improvement

Inpatient QIs MortalityUtilizationVolume AHRQ Quality Indicators Prevention QIs (Area Level) Avoidable Hospitalizations Other Avoidable Conditions Patient Safety Indicators ComplicationsFailure-to-rescue Unexpected death Pediatric QIs

Structure of indicators Definitions based on Definitions based on – ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes – Inclusion/exclusion criteria based upon DRGs, sex, age, procedure dates, admission type Numerator = number of cases “flagged” with the complication or situation of interest Numerator = number of cases “flagged” with the complication or situation of interest – e.g., postoperative sepsis, avoidable hospitalization for asthma, death Denominator = number of patients considered to be at risk for that complication or situation Denominator = number of patients considered to be at risk for that complication or situation – e.g. elective surgical patients, county population from census data Indicator “rate” = numerator/denominator Indicator “rate” = numerator/denominator

Literature review (all) Literature review (all) – To identify quality concepts and potential indicators – To find previous work on indicator validity ICD-9-CM coding review (all) ICD-9-CM coding review (all) – To ensure correspondence between clinical concept and coding practice Clinical panel reviews (PSI’s, pediatric QIs) Clinical panel reviews (PSI’s, pediatric QIs) – To refine indicator definition and risk groupings – To establish face validity when minimal literature Empirical analyses (all) Empirical analyses (all) – To explore alternative definitions – To assess nationwide rates, hospital variation, relationships among indicators – To develop methods to account for differences in risk AHRQ QI development: General process

Literature review to find candidate PSI indicators MEDLINE/EMBASE search guided by medical librarians at Stanford and NCPCRD (UK) MEDLINE/EMBASE search guided by medical librarians at Stanford and NCPCRD (UK) – Few examples described in peer reviewed journals Iezzoni et al.’s Complications Screening Program (CSP) Iezzoni et al.’s Complications Screening Program (CSP) Miller et al.’s Patient Safety Indicators Miller et al.’s Patient Safety Indicators Review of ICD-9-CM code book Review of ICD-9-CM code book Codes from above sources were grouped into clinically coherent indicators with appropriate denominators Codes from above sources were grouped into clinically coherent indicators with appropriate denominators

Coding (criterion) validity based on literature review (MEDLINE/EMBASE) Validation studies of Iezzoni et al.’s CSP Validation studies of Iezzoni et al.’s CSP – At least one of three validation studies (coders, nurses, or physicians) confirmed PPV at least 70% among flagged cases – Nurse-identified process-of-care failures were more prevalent among flagged cases than among unflagged controls Other studies of coding validity Other studies of coding validity – Very few in peer-reviewed journals, some in “gray literature”

Construct validity based on literature review (MEDLINE/EMBASE) Approaches to assessing construct validity Approaches to assessing construct validity – Is the outcome indicator associated with explicit processes of care (e.g., appropriate use of medications)? – Is the outcome indicator associated with implicit process of care (e.g., global ratings of quality)? – Is the outcome indicator associated with nurse staffing or skill mix, physician skill mix, or other aspects of hospital structure?

ICD-9-CM coding consultant review All definitions were reviewed by an expert coding consultant from the American Health Information Management Association, with special attention to prior coding guidelines All definitions were reviewed by an expert coding consultant from the American Health Information Management Association, with special attention to prior coding guidelines Central staff of ICD-9-CM were queried as necessary Central staff of ICD-9-CM were queried as necessary Definitions were refined as appropriate Definitions were refined as appropriate

Face validity: Clinical panel review Intended to establish consensual validity Intended to establish consensual validity Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Physicians of various specialties and subspecialties, nurses, other specialized professionals (e.g., midwife, pharmacist) Physicians of various specialties and subspecialties, nurses, other specialized professionals (e.g., midwife, pharmacist) Potential indicators were rated by 8 multispecialty panels; surgical indicators were also rated by 3 surgical panels Potential indicators were rated by 8 multispecialty panels; surgical indicators were also rated by 3 surgical panels

Face validity: Clinical panel review (cont’d) All panelists rated all assigned indicators on: All panelists rated all assigned indicators on: – Overall usefulness – Likelihood of identifying the occurrence of an adverse event or complication (i.e., not present at admission) – Likelihood of being preventable (i.e., not an expected result of underlying conditions) – Likelihood of being due to medical error or negligence (i.e., not just lack of ideal or perfect care) – Likelihood of being clearly charted – Extent to which indicator is subject to case mix bias

Medical error and complications continuum Evaluation framework Pre-conference ratings and comments/suggestions Pre-conference ratings and comments/suggestions Individual ratings returned to panelists with distribution of ratings and other panelists’ comments/suggestions Individual ratings returned to panelists with distribution of ratings and other panelists’ comments/suggestions Telephone conference call moderated by PI and attended by note-taker, focusing on high-variability items and panelists’ suggestions ( mins) Telephone conference call moderated by PI and attended by note-taker, focusing on high-variability items and panelists’ suggestions ( mins) Suggestions adopted only by consensus Suggestions adopted only by consensus Post-conference ratings and comments/ suggestions Post-conference ratings and comments/ suggestions Medical error Nonpreventable Complications

Example reviews Multispecialty panels Overall rating Overall rating Not present on admission Not present on admission Preventability (4) Preventability (4) Due to medical error (2) Due to medical error (2) Charting by physicians (6) Charting by physicians (6) Not biased (3) Not biased (3) (5) (7) (4) (2) (6) (3) (8) (7) Postop PneumoniaDecubitus Ulcer

Final selection of indicators Retained indicators for which “overall usefulness” rating was “Acceptable” or “Acceptable-” : Retained indicators for which “overall usefulness” rating was “Acceptable” or “Acceptable-” : – Median score 7-9 – Definite or indeterminate agreement Excluded indicators rated “Unclear,” “Unclear-,” or “Unacceptable” : Excluded indicators rated “Unclear,” “Unclear-,” or “Unacceptable” : – Median score <7, OR – At least 2 panelists rated the indicator in each of the extreme 3-point ranges

Candidate PSIs reviewed 48 indicators reviewed in total 48 indicators reviewed in total – 37 reviewed by multispecialty panel – 15 of those reviewed by surgical panel 20 “accepted” based on face validity 20 “accepted” based on face validity – 2 dropped due to operational concerns 17 “experimental” or promising indicators 17 “experimental” or promising indicators 11 rejected 11 rejected

“Accepted” PSIs Selected postop complications Postoperative thromboembolism Postoperative respiratory failure Postoperative sepsis Postoperative physiologic and metabolic derangements Postoperative abdominopelvic wound dehiscence Postoperative hip fracture Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma Selected technical adverse events Decubitus ulcer Selected infections due to medical care Technical difficulty with procedures Iatrogenic pneumothorax Accidental puncture or laceration Foreign body left in during procedureOther Complications of anesthesia Death in low mortality DRGs Failure to rescue Transfusion reaction (ABO/Rh) Obstetric trauma and birth trauma Birth trauma – injury to neonate Obstetric trauma – vaginal delivery with instrument Obstetric trauma – vaginal delivery without instrument Obstetric trauma – cesarean section delivery

Pediatric Quality Indicators Inpatient Indicators Inpatient Indicators – Accidental puncture and laceration – Decubitus ulcer – Foreign body left in after procedure – Iatrogenic pneumothorax in neonates at risk – Iatrogenic pneumothorax in non-neonates – Pediatric heart surgery mortality – Pediatric heart surgery volume – Postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma – Postoperative respiratory failure – Postoperative sepsis – Postoperative wound dehiscence due to medical care – Transfusion reaction

PSI risk adjustment methods Must use only administrative data Must use only administrative data APR-DRGs and other canned packages may adjust for complications APR-DRGs and other canned packages may adjust for complications Final model Final model – DRGs (complication DRGs aggregated) – Modified Comorbidity Index based on list developed by Elixhauser et al. (completely redesigned for Pediatric QIs) – Age, Sex, Age-Sex interactions

Pediatric QI Risk Adjustment Reason for admission/type of procedure Reason for admission/type of procedure – DRGs (with/without CC collapsed) – Other (e.g., diagnostic/therapeutic procedure categories for accidental injury) Comorbidity Comorbidity – Special pediatric-oriented comorbidity list Gender, age groups Gender, age groups – <29 d, d, d, d, 1-2 yrs, 3-5 yrs, 6-12 yrs, yrs Low birth weight categories (neonates) Low birth weight categories (neonates) – 500 gram categories ( g)

OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project Includes 21 countries, WHO, European Commission, World Bank, ISQua, etc. Includes 21 countries, WHO, European Commission, World Bank, ISQua, etc. Five priority areas Five priority areas – Cardiac care – Diabetes mellitus – Mental health – Patient safety – Prevention/health promotion and primary care

OECD Indicator Selection Criteria Importance Importance – Impact on health – Policy importance (concern for policymakers and consumers) – Susceptibility to being influenced by the health care system Scientific soundness Scientific soundness – Face validity (clinical rationale and past usage) – Content validity Feasibility Feasibility – Data availability on the international level – Reporting burden

OECD Review Process Patient safety panel constituted with 5 members (Dr. John Millar, Chair) Patient safety panel constituted with 5 members (Dr. John Millar, Chair) 59 indicators from 7 sources submitted for review (US, Canada, Australia) 59 indicators from 7 sources submitted for review (US, Canada, Australia) Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Panelists rated each indicator on importance and scientific soundness (2 rounds with intervening discussion) Panelists rated each indicator on importance and scientific soundness (2 rounds with intervening discussion) Retained 21 indicators with median score >7 (scale 1-9) on both domains; rejected indicators with median score ≤5 on either domain Retained 21 indicators with median score >7 (scale 1-9) on both domains; rejected indicators with median score ≤5 on either domain

OECD expert panel ratings of PSIs

AHRQ panel ratings of PSI “preventability” very similar to OECD ratings a Panel ratings were based on definitions different than final definitions. For “Iatrogenic pneumothorax,” the rated denominator was restricted to patients receiving thoracentesis or central lines; the final definition expands the denominator to all patients (with same exclusions). For “In-hospital fracture” panelists rated the broader Experimental indicator, which was replaced in the Accepted set by “Postoperative hip fracture” due to operational concerns. b Vascular complications were rated as Unclear (-) by surgical panel; multispecialty panel rating is shown here.

US rates of OECD-endorsed PSIs Patient Safety Indicator 2003 events 2003 rate per 1,000 COMPLICATIONS OF ANESTHESIA 7, DECUBITUS ULCER 198, FOREIGN BODY LEFT IN DURING PROC 2, INFECTION DUE TO MEDICAL CARE 43, POSTOPERATIVE HIP FRACTURE 1, POSTOPERATIVE PE OR DVT 80, POSTOPERATIVE SEPSIS 10, ACCIDENTAL PUNCTURE/LACERATION 97, TRANSFUSION REACTION BIRTH TRAUMA -INJURY TO NEONATE 22, OB TRAUMA - VAGINAL W INSTRUMENT 55, OB TRAUMA - VAGINAL W/O INSTRUMENT 116,

Primary uses of the AHRQ PSIs Internal hospital quality improvement Internal hospital quality improvement – Individual hospitals and health care systems, hospital associations – Trigger case finding, root cause analyses, identification of clusters – Evaluate impact of local interventions – Monitor performance over time External hospital accountability to the community External hospital accountability to the community National, State and regional analyses National, State and regional analyses – National Healthcare Quality/Disparities Reports – Surveillance of trends over time – Disparities across areas, SES strata, ethnicities

Relative change from to in observed and risk-adjusted AHRQ PSI rates Patient Safety Indicator % change Observed Risk-adjusted COMPLICATIONS OF ANESTHESIA 14.7%13.7% DECUBITUS ULCER 12.1%11.7% FOREIGN BODY LEFT IN DURING PROC 4.5% INFECTION DUE TO MEDICAL CARE 13.8%11.0% POSTOPERATIVE HIP FRACTURE -8.4%-12.2% POSTOPERATIVE PE OR DVT 25.3%26.6% POSTOPERATIVE SEPSIS 15.6%14.7% ACCIDENTAL PUNCTURE/LACERATION 3.1%3.9% TRANSFUSION REACTION 13.2% BIRTH TRAUMA -INJURY TO NEONATE -8.3%-8.3% OB TRAUMA - VAGINAL W INSTRUMENT -10.1%-9.4% OB TRAUMA - VAGINAL W/O INSTRUMENT -15.3%-14.9%

Newer uses of the AHRQ PSIs Testing research hypotheses related to patient safety Testing research hypotheses related to patient safety – Housestaff work hours reform – Nurse staffing regulation Public reporting by hospital Public reporting by hospital – Texas, New York, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Florida, Utah Pay-for-performance by hospital Pay-for-performance by hospital – CMS/Premier Demonstration (278 hospitals, focus on 2 postop events after THA/TKA) – Anthem of Virginia (focus on monitoring any two) Hospital profiling Hospital profiling – Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois

International inquiries regarding the AHRQ QIs Canada58 Spain3 Italy15 Australia7 Belgium5 South Africa1 Philippines1 Slovenia1 Taiwan3 Switzerland1 Romania3 New Zeland4 Argentina2 Portugal1 United Kingdom1 Japan3 Germany7 France1 Indonesia2 Saudi Arabia2 Guyana1

International inquiries regarding the AHRQ QIs Quality Indicator Module Number Prevention Quality Indicators 15 Inpatient Quality Indicators 46 Patient Safety Indicators 74 Pediatric Quality Indicators 1 No specific module 51

Practical issues in international implementation of AHRQ PSIs ICD-9-CM to ICD-10 conversion ICD-9-CM to ICD-10 conversion – Entirely different coding structure – Three new chapters – 12,420 codes versus 6,969 – Nation-specific versions (CA, AU, GM) No internationally accepted coding system for procedures No internationally accepted coding system for procedures

Practical issues in international implementation of AHRQ PSIs Variation in documentation and coding practices Variation in documentation and coding practices Variation in other data definitions Variation in other data definitions – Principal versus primary diagnosis – Number of diagnosis codes – Procedure dates – External cause of injury codes – Type of admission (elective, urgent, emergency) Variation in how administrative data are collected and used Variation in how administrative data are collected and used – DRG-based payment versus global budgeting versus service-based payment

Coding of secondary diagnoses in the USA For reporting purposes the definition for "other diagnoses" is interpreted as additional conditions that affect patient care in terms of requiring: For reporting purposes the definition for "other diagnoses" is interpreted as additional conditions that affect patient care in terms of requiring: clinical evaluation; or therapeutic treatment; or diagnostic procedures; or extended length of hospital stay; or increased nursing care and/or monitoring. “All conditions that occur following surgery…are not complications… there must be more than a routinely expected condition or occurrence… there must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the care provided and the condition…” “All conditions that occur following surgery…are not complications… there must be more than a routinely expected condition or occurrence… there must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the care provided and the condition…”

ICD-9-CM Coding: Procedures Coding of procedures Coding of procedures “The UHDDS requires all significant procedures to be reported… A significant procedure is defined as one that meets any of the following conditions: Is surgical in nature Carries an anesthetic risk Carries a procedural risk Requires specialized training.” What about central venous catheters?

International initiatives Conversion efforts are underway, but need to be coordinated internationally Conversion efforts are underway, but need to be coordinated internationally Undertake detailed meta-analysis of national data systems Undertake detailed meta-analysis of national data systems Review international variation in coding rules and procedures Review international variation in coding rules and procedures Improve data systems (e.g., “present at admission” coding in USA) and develop data on accuracy Improve data systems (e.g., “present at admission” coding in USA) and develop data on accuracy Prioritize indicators based on likelihood of international comparability Prioritize indicators based on likelihood of international comparability

International collaborative meeting of health services researchers using administrative data Calgary, Alberta, June 2005; supported by CIHR; forthcoming in BMC HSR

Conversion of Elixhauser comorbidity list from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10, ICD-10-CA Quan H, et al., reported at AcademyHealth 2006

German mapping of PSIs from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-GM Saskia E. Droesler and Juergen Stausberg

PSI incidence comparison Germany vs. USA US population rate (log) 2002 German population rate (log) 2004

Developing data on accuracy and relevance: AHRQ PSIs in Children’s Hospitals Sedman A, et al. Pediatrics 2005;115(1): PSI No. reviewed (total events) Preventable (PPV %) NonpreventableUnclear Complications of anesthesia 74 (503)11 (15%)3725 Death in low-mortality DRG 121 (1282)16 (13%)8916 Decubitus ulcer 130 (2300)71 (55%)4710 Failure to rescue 187 (5271)15 (8%)14811 Foreign body left in 49 (235)25 (51%)1410 Postop hemorrhage or hematoma 114 (1571)40 (35%)5123 Iatrogenic pneumothorax 114 (1113)51 (45%)4221 Selected infection 2° to med care 152 (7291)63 (41%)4539 Postop DVT/PE 126 (1956)36 (29%)6129 Postop wound dehiscence 41 (232)19 (46%)166 Accidental puncture or laceration 133 (4020)86 (65%)1926