8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance of Comprehensive Risk Adjustment for the Prediction of In-Hospital Events Using Administrative Healthcare Data: The Queralt Indices

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Accurate risk adjustment is crucial for healthcare management and benchmarking.

          Purpose

          We aimed to compare the performance of classic comorbidity functions (Charlson’s and Elixhauser’s), of the All Patients Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRG), and of the Queralt Indices, a family of novel, comprehensive comorbidity indices for the prediction of key clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients.

          Material and Methods

          We conducted an observational, retrospective cohort study using administrative healthcare data from 156,459 hospital discharges in Catalonia (Spain) during 2018. Study outcomes were in-hospital death, long hospital stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We evaluated the performance of the following indices: Charlson’s and Elixhauser’s functions, Queralt’s Index for secondary hospital discharge diagnoses (Queralt DxS), the overall Queralt’s Index, which includes pre-existing comorbidities, in-hospital complications, and principal discharge diagnosis (Queralt Dx), and the APR-DRG. Discriminative ability was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), and measures of goodness of fit were also computed. Subgroup analyses were conducted by principal discharge diagnosis, by age, and type of admission.

          Results

          Queralt DxS provided relevant risk adjustment information in a larger number of patients compared to Charlson’s and Elixhauser’s functions, and outperformed both for the prediction of the 3 study outcomes. Queralt Dx also outperformed Charlson’s and Elixhauser’s indices, and yielded superior predictive ability and goodness of fit compared to APR-DRG (AUC for in-hospital death 0.95 for Queralt Dx, 0.77–0.93 for all other indices; for ICU stay 0.84 for Queralt Dx, 0.73–0.83 for all other indices). The performance of Queralt DxS was at least as good as that of the APR-DRG in most principal discharge diagnosis subgroups.

          Conclusion

          Our findings suggest that risk adjustment should go beyond pre-existing comorbidities and include principal discharge diagnoses and in-hospital complications. Validation of comprehensive risk adjustment tools such as the Queralt indices in other settings is needed.

          Video abstract

          Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

          https://youtu.be/bUzPgB1KMRg

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Why Summary Comorbidity Measures Such As the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser Score Work.

          Comorbidity adjustment is an important component of health services research and clinical prognosis. When adjusting for comorbidities in statistical models, researchers can include comorbidities individually or through the use of summary measures such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index or Elixhauser score. We examined the conditions under which individual versus summary measures are most appropriate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data.

            Adjustment for comorbidities is common in performance benchmarking and risk prediction. Despite the exponential upsurge in the number of articles citing or comparing Charlson, Elixhauser, and their variants, no systematic review has been conducted on studies comparing comorbidity measures in use with administrative data. We present a systematic review of these multiple comparison studies and introduce a new meta-analytical approach to identify the best performing comorbidity measures/indices for short-term (inpatient + ≤ 30 d) and long-term (outpatient+>30 d) mortality. Articles up to March 18, 2011 were searched based on our predefined terms. The bibliography of the chosen articles and the relevant reviews were also searched and reviewed. Multiple comparisons between comorbidity measures/indices were split into all possible pairs. We used the hypergeometric test and confidence intervals for proportions to identify the comparators with significantly superior/inferior performance for short-term and long-term mortality. In addition, useful information such as the influence of lookback periods was extracted and reported. Out of 1312 retrieved articles, 54 articles were eligible. The Deyo variant of Charlson was the most commonly referred comparator followed by the Elixhauser measure. Compared with baseline variables such as age and sex, comorbidity adjustment methods seem to better predict long-term than short-term mortality and Elixhauser seems to be the best predictor for this outcome. For short-term mortality, however, recalibration giving empirical weights seems more important than the choice of comorbidity measure. The performance of a given comorbidity measure depends on the patient group and outcome. In general, the Elixhauser index seems the best so far, particularly for mortality beyond 30 days, although several newer, more inclusive measures are promising.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Choosing a future for epidemiology: I. Eras and paradigms.

              To inform choices about the future of epidemiology, the present condition of epidemiology is examined, in terms of its evolution through three eras, each demarcated by its own paradigm: (1) the era of sanitary statistics with its paradigm, miasma; (2) the era of infectious disease epidemiology with its paradigm, the germ theory; and (3) the era of chronic disease epidemiology with its paradigm, the black box. The historical context in which these eras arose is briefly described. In each era, the public health was at the center of the concerns of the founders and early protagonists of the prevailing paradigm. Around this intellectual development we weave a further theme. We argue that in the present era, the public health has become less central a concern. At the same time, in epidemiology today the dominant black box paradigm is of declining utility and is likely soon to be superseded.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                RMHP
                rmhp
                Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
                Dove
                1179-1594
                26 March 2020
                2020
                : 13
                : 271-283
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Catalan Institute of Health , Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions , Baltimore, MD, USA
                [3 ]Bellvitge University Hospital, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat , Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Vall d’Hebron Hospital , Barcelona, Spain
                [5 ]Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR) , Barcelona, Spain
                [6 ]Catalan Health Service , Barcelona, Spain
                [7 ]Catalan Health Department , Barcelona, Spain
                [8 ]Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO) , Barcelona, Spain
                [9 ]University of Barcelona , Barcelona, Spain
                Author notes
                Correspondence: David Monterde Department of Statistics, Information Systems, Catalan Institute of Health , Gran via De Les Corts Catalanes 587, Barcelona08007, SpainTel +34 934824642 Email dmonterde@gencat.cat
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8654-6690
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2073-0951
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8752-9112
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0498-8290
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-720X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8566-1155
                Article
                228415
                10.2147/RMHP.S228415
                7125405
                32280290
                8196134b-c33a-4113-afe2-068a25bc157e
                © 2020 Monterde et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 23 August 2019
                : 17 January 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 7, References: 33, Pages: 13
                Categories
                Original Research

                Social policy & Welfare
                benchmarking,case-mix,comorbidity,discrimination,multimorbidity,queralt’s indices,risk

                Comments

                Comment on this article