Comparison of risk-adjustment models using administrative or clinical data for outcome prediction in patients after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery in Korea

H. K. Park, Seok-Jun Yoon, Hyeong Sik Ahn, L. S. Ahn, H. J. Seo, S. I. Lee, K. S. Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare the performance indicators of risk-adjustment models based on administrative and clinical data in Korea, and to assess whether administrative data alone is useful for comparing quality of care. Methods: Outcome was defined as death within 30 days of discharge. For administrative data, the risk factors were; age, sex, and 11 past histories and two past major procedures, which were retrospectively chased in National Health Insurance database using patient Identification Number. For clinical data, the severity score of the three risk-adjustment measures [MedisGroups, Disease Staging (DS) and Computerized Severity Index (CSI)] was used as the independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Risk-adjustment models were developed by logistic regression analysis for 13,885 Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and 2115 Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) patients based on administrative data and for 208 AMI patients and 478 CABG patients using clinical data. Performances of models were examined using c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. Results: The results obtained showed the superiority of the clinical model. For AMI, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.696, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.772, 0.861 and 0.988 respectively. For CABG, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.568, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.665, 0.731 and 0.816 respectively. Conclusion: Our results indicate that risk-adjustment model only using administrative data are probably not useful for assessing quality of care in Korea.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1086-1090
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Practice
Volume61
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007 Jul 1

Fingerprint

Risk Adjustment
Korea
Myocardial Infarction
Coronary Artery Bypass
Quality of Health Care
Transplants
National Health Programs
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Databases
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{7a4c0f598ab248bf914ff5f9268e4645,
title = "Comparison of risk-adjustment models using administrative or clinical data for outcome prediction in patients after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery in Korea",
abstract = "Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare the performance indicators of risk-adjustment models based on administrative and clinical data in Korea, and to assess whether administrative data alone is useful for comparing quality of care. Methods: Outcome was defined as death within 30 days of discharge. For administrative data, the risk factors were; age, sex, and 11 past histories and two past major procedures, which were retrospectively chased in National Health Insurance database using patient Identification Number. For clinical data, the severity score of the three risk-adjustment measures [MedisGroups, Disease Staging (DS) and Computerized Severity Index (CSI)] was used as the independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Risk-adjustment models were developed by logistic regression analysis for 13,885 Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and 2115 Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) patients based on administrative data and for 208 AMI patients and 478 CABG patients using clinical data. Performances of models were examined using c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. Results: The results obtained showed the superiority of the clinical model. For AMI, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.696, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.772, 0.861 and 0.988 respectively. For CABG, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.568, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.665, 0.731 and 0.816 respectively. Conclusion: Our results indicate that risk-adjustment model only using administrative data are probably not useful for assessing quality of care in Korea.",
author = "Park, {H. K.} and Seok-Jun Yoon and Ahn, {Hyeong Sik} and Ahn, {L. S.} and Seo, {H. J.} and Lee, {S. I.} and Lee, {K. S.}",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01345.x",
language = "English",
volume = "61",
pages = "1086--1090",
journal = "International Journal of Clinical Practice",
issn = "1368-5031",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of risk-adjustment models using administrative or clinical data for outcome prediction in patients after myocardial infarction or coronary bypass surgery in Korea

AU - Park, H. K.

AU - Yoon, Seok-Jun

AU - Ahn, Hyeong Sik

AU - Ahn, L. S.

AU - Seo, H. J.

AU - Lee, S. I.

AU - Lee, K. S.

PY - 2007/7/1

Y1 - 2007/7/1

N2 - Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare the performance indicators of risk-adjustment models based on administrative and clinical data in Korea, and to assess whether administrative data alone is useful for comparing quality of care. Methods: Outcome was defined as death within 30 days of discharge. For administrative data, the risk factors were; age, sex, and 11 past histories and two past major procedures, which were retrospectively chased in National Health Insurance database using patient Identification Number. For clinical data, the severity score of the three risk-adjustment measures [MedisGroups, Disease Staging (DS) and Computerized Severity Index (CSI)] was used as the independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Risk-adjustment models were developed by logistic regression analysis for 13,885 Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and 2115 Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) patients based on administrative data and for 208 AMI patients and 478 CABG patients using clinical data. Performances of models were examined using c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. Results: The results obtained showed the superiority of the clinical model. For AMI, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.696, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.772, 0.861 and 0.988 respectively. For CABG, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.568, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.665, 0.731 and 0.816 respectively. Conclusion: Our results indicate that risk-adjustment model only using administrative data are probably not useful for assessing quality of care in Korea.

AB - Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare the performance indicators of risk-adjustment models based on administrative and clinical data in Korea, and to assess whether administrative data alone is useful for comparing quality of care. Methods: Outcome was defined as death within 30 days of discharge. For administrative data, the risk factors were; age, sex, and 11 past histories and two past major procedures, which were retrospectively chased in National Health Insurance database using patient Identification Number. For clinical data, the severity score of the three risk-adjustment measures [MedisGroups, Disease Staging (DS) and Computerized Severity Index (CSI)] was used as the independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Risk-adjustment models were developed by logistic regression analysis for 13,885 Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and 2115 Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) patients based on administrative data and for 208 AMI patients and 478 CABG patients using clinical data. Performances of models were examined using c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. Results: The results obtained showed the superiority of the clinical model. For AMI, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.696, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.772, 0.861 and 0.988 respectively. For CABG, the c-statistic of the administrative model was 0.568, and those of the CSI, DS and MedisGroups models were 0.665, 0.731 and 0.816 respectively. Conclusion: Our results indicate that risk-adjustment model only using administrative data are probably not useful for assessing quality of care in Korea.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250637231&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250637231&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01345.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01345.x

M3 - Article

VL - 61

SP - 1086

EP - 1090

JO - International Journal of Clinical Practice

JF - International Journal of Clinical Practice

SN - 1368-5031

IS - 7

ER -