The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 198, Issue 5, Supplement , Pages S63-S68 , November 2009

Using administrative data to identify surgical adverse events: an introduction to the Patient Safety Indicators

  • Haytham M.A. Kaafarani, M.D., M.P.H.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, VA Boston Healthcare System, West Roxbury, MA, USA
    • Center for Health, Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, a VA Center of Excellence, Bedford, MA, USA
    • ,
  • Amy K. Rosen, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Center for Health, Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research, a VA Center of Excellence, Bedford, MA, USA
    • Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: 781-687-2960; fax: 781-687-3106

Received 22 May 2009 ,Revised 18 August 2009

References 

  1. In:  Kohn LT,  Corrigan JM,  Donaldson MS editor. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000;
  2. Miller DC, Filson CP, Wallner LP, Montie JE, Campbell DA, Wei JT. Comparing performance of morbidity and mortality conference and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program for detection of complications after urologic surgery. Urology. 2006;68:931–937
  3. Hutter MM, Rowell KS, Devaney LA, et al. Identification of surgical complications and deaths: an assessment of the traditional surgical morbidity and mortality conference compared with the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;203:618–624
  4. Hannan EL, Kilburn H, Lindsey ML, Lewis R. Clinical versus administrative data bases for CABG surgery (Does it matter?). Med Care. 1992;30:892–907
  5. Shahian DM, Silverstein T, Lovett AF, Wolf RE, Normand SL. Comparison of clinical and administrative data sources for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards. Circulation. 2007;115:1518–1527
  6. Parker JP, Li Z, Damberg CL, Danielsen B, Carlisle DM. Administrative versus clinical data for coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards: the view from California. Med Care. 2006;44:687–695
  7. Romano PS, Geppert JJ, Davies S, et al. A national profile of patient safety in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:154–166
  8. National Quality Forum. Home page http://www.qualityforum.orgAccessed May 18, 2009
  9. US Department of Health and Human Services. Hospital Compare—a quality tool provided by Medicare. http://www.hospitalcompare.hhs.govAccessed May 18, 2009
  10. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ quality indicators: Patient Safety Indicators: technical specifications. http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/downloads/psi/psi_technical_specs_v32.pdfAccessed May 18, 2009
  11. http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-10458_PI.pdfAccessed: May 18, 2009
  12. Gallagher B, Cen L, Hannan EL. Validation of AHRQ's Patient Safety Indicator for accidental puncture or laceration. In:  Henriksen K,  Battles JB,  Marks E,  Lewin DI editor. Advances in patient safety: from research to implementation, vol 2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005;p. 27–38
  13. Houchens R, Elixhauser A, Romano P. How often are potential “patient safety events” present on admission?. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safety. 2008;34:154–163
  14. Zhan C, Battles J, Chiang Y, Hunt D. The validity of ICD-9-CM codes in identifying postoperative deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Safety. 2007;33:326–331
  15. Romano PS, Mull HJ, Rivard PE, et al. Validity of selected AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators based on VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data. Health Serv Res. 2009;44:182–204

PII: S0002-9610(09)00471-1

doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.008

The American Journal of Surgery
Volume 198, Issue 5, Supplement , Pages S63-S68 , November 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution