Article

Development and validation of a risk-adjustment tool in acute asthma.

EMNet Coordinating Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02114, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 08/2009; 44(5 Pt 1):1701-17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00998.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To develop and prospectively validate a risk-adjustment tool in acute asthma.
Data were obtained from two large studies on acute asthma, the Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration (MARC) and the National Emergency Department Safety Study (NEDSS) cohorts. Both studies involved >60 emergency departments (EDs) and were performed during 1996-2001 and 2003-2006, respectively. Both included patients aged 18-54 years presenting to the ED with acute asthma.
Retrospective cohort studies.
Clinical information was obtained from medical record review. The risk index was derived in the MARC cohort and then was prospectively validated in the NEDSS cohort.
There were 3,515 patients in the derivation cohort and 3,986 in the validation cohort. The risk index included nine variables (age, sex, current smoker, ever admitted for asthma, ever intubated for asthma, duration of symptoms, respiratory rate, peak expiratory flow, and number of beta-agonist treatments) and showed satisfactory discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75) and calibration ( p=.30 for Hosmer-Lemeshow test) when applied to the validation cohort.
We developed and validated a novel risk-adjustment tool in acute asthma. This tool can be used for health care provider profiling to identify outliers for quality improvement purposes.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Carlos A Camargo, Jul 07, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
130 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe the incidence and types of medical errors in emergency departments (EDs) and assess the validity of a survey instrument that identifies systems factors contributing to errors in EDs. We conducted the National Emergency Department Safety Study in 62 urban EDs across 20 US states. We reviewed 9,821 medical records of ED patients with one of 3 conditions (myocardial infarction, asthma exacerbation, and joint dislocation) to evaluate medical errors. We also obtained surveys from 3,562 staff randomly selected from each ED; survey data were used to calculate average safety climate scores for each ED. We identified 402 adverse events (incidence rate 4.1 per 100 patient visits; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7 to 4.5) and 532 near misses (incidence rate 5.4 per 100 patient visits; 95% CI 5.0 to 5.9). We judged 37% of the adverse events, and all of the near misses, to be preventable (errors); 33% of the near misses were intercepted. In multivariable models, better ED safety climate was not associated with fewer preventable adverse events (incidence rate ratio per 0.2-point increase in ED safety score 0.82; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.16) but was associated with more intercepted near misses (incidence rate ratio 1.79; 95% CI 1.06 to 3.03). We found no association between safety climate and violations of national treatment guidelines. Among the 3 ED conditions studied, medical errors are relatively common, and one third of adverse events are preventable. Improved ED safety climate may increase the likelihood that near misses are intercepted.
    Annals of emergency medicine 11/2012; 60(5):555-563.e20. DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.02.018 · 4.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify and assess billing, procedural, or diagnosis code, or pharmacy claim-based algorithms used to identify acute bronchospasm in administrative and claims databases. We searched the MEDLINE database from 1991 to September 2012 using controlled vocabulary and key terms related to bronchospasm, wheeze and acute asthma. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Two investigators independently assessed the full text of studies against pre-determined inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data regarding participant and algorithm characteristics. Our searches identified 677 citations of which 38 met our inclusion criteria. In these 38 studies, the most commonly used ICD-9 code was 493.x. Only 3 studies reported any validation methods for the identification of bronchospasm, wheeze or acute asthma in administrative and claims databases; all were among pediatric populations and only 2 offered any validation statistics. Some of the outcome definitions utilized were heterogeneous and included other disease based diagnoses, such as bronchiolitis and pneumonia, which are typically of an infectious etiology. One study offered the validation of algorithms utilizing Emergency Department triage chief complaint codes to diagnose acute asthma exacerbations with ICD-9 786.07 (wheezing) revealing the highest sensitivity (56%), specificity (97%), PPV (93.5%) and NPV (76%). There is a paucity of studies reporting rigorous methods to validate algorithms for the identification of bronchospasm in administrative data. The scant validated data available are limited in their generalizability to broad-based populations.
    Vaccine 12/2013; 31S10:K12-K20. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.06.091 · 3.49 Impact Factor