Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Agreement assessment of key maternal and newborn data elements between birth registry and Clinical Administrative Hospital Databases in Ontario, Canada

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Since 2012, BORN Ontario, a maternal-newborn registry, has collected data on every birth in Ontario. To ensure data quality, we assessed the reliability of key elements collected in BORN by comparing these with like data elements in the Canadian Institute for Health Information-Discharge Abstract Database (CIHI-DAD).

Methods

We used provincial health card numbers to deterministically link live or stillbirth records and their corresponding mothers’ records in the BORN database to the CIHI-DAD in the fiscal years 2012–2013 to 2014–2015. Percentage agreement and Cohen Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement on main elements in both databases.

Results

The percentage agreement and Kappa coefficients were 99.98% and 0.740 (95% CI: 0.677–0.803) on live/stillbirth, respectively. The Kappa coefficients for infant sex, gestational age at birth, induction of labour, and caesarean birth were 0.989 (95% CI: 0.988–0.989), 0.920 (95% CI: 0.919–0.920), 0.782 (95% CI: 0.780–0.785), and 0.995 (95% CI: 0.995–0.996), respectively. Kappa agreement for the number of fetuses in a pregnancy was 0.979 (95% CI: 0.977–0.981). Percentage agreement was very high for infants’ birthdates (99.9%), infant postal codes (91.8%), infants’ birth weight in grams (95.5%), and mothers’ dates of birth (99.1%).

Conclusions

Overall, the BORN and CIHI-DAD databases had concordance on key birth and maternal data elements; however, additional work is needed to understand discrepancies identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sprague AE, Sidney D, Darling EK, Wagner V, Soderstrom B, Rogers J, Graves E, Coyle D, Sumner A, Holmberg V, Khan B, Walker MC (2018) Outcomes for the first year of Ontario’s Birth Center demonstration project. J Midwifery Womens Health 63(5):532–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12884

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Dunn S, Sprague AE, Grimshaw JM, Graham ID, Taljaard M, Fell D, Peterson WE, Darling E, Harrold J, Smith GN, Reszel J, Lanes A, Truskoski C, Wilding J, Weiss D, Walker M (2016) A mixed methods evaluation of the maternal-newborn dashboard in Ontario: dashboard attributes, contextual factors, and facilitators and barriers to use: a study protocol. Implement Sci 11:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0427-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Dunn S, Sprague A, Fell D, Dy J, Harrold J, Lamontagne B, Walker M (2013) The use of a quality indicator to reduce elective repeat caesarean section for low-risk women before 39 weeks’ gestation: the Eastern Ontario Experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 35(4):306–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30957-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (2016) Data quality study of the 2015–2016 Discharge Abstract Database: a focus on hospital harm 2016. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/DAD_15_16_Reab_Report_EN.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  5. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (1996–2018) Discharge Abstract Database Metadata (DAD). https://www.cihi.ca/en/discharge-abstract-database-metadata. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  6. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (1996–2019). DAD Data Elements 2015–2016. p. 2015–6. https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productSeries.htm?pc=PCC189&_ga=2.107224642.115153162.1540238008-2019196711.1518113758. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  7. Dunn S, Bottomley J, Ali A, Walker M (2011) 2008 Niday perinatal database quality audit: report of a quality assurance project. Chronic Dis Inj Can 32(1):32–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. BORN Ontario (2013) BORN Data Quality Framework. https://datadictionary.bornontario.ca/data-quality/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  9. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Viera AJ, Garrett JM (2015) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37(5):360–363

    Google Scholar 

  11. Government of Canada (2014) Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. https://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/default/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  12. Frosst G, Hutcheon J, Joseph KS, Kinniburgh B, Johnson C, Lee L (2015) Validating the British Columbia Perinatal Data Registry: a chart re-abstraction study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0563-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Joseph KS, Fahey J (2009) Validation of perinatal data in the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Chronic Dis Can 29(3):96–100

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Statistics Canada (2005) Data quality, concepts and methodology, Database, Vital Statistics - Stillbirth. 2002. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/84f0211x/2005000/4153052-eng.htm. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  15. Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information (2014) Provincial standard related to stillborn abstracting. https://www.nlchi.nl.ca/images/PDFs/Provincial%20Standard%20for%20Stillborn%20Abstracting%202014.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  16. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) (2015) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. https://www.cihi.ca/en/icd_volume_one_2015_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  17. Hanley GE, Munro S, Greyson D, Gross MM, Hundley V, Spiby H, Janssen PA (2016) Diagnosing onset of labor: a systematic review of definitions in the research literature. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 16:71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27039302

  18. Lange I, Ab C, Lee L, Bc V, Muise S, On ST (2013) Induction of labour. 296:1–18. https://sogc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/September2013-CPG296-ENG-Online_REV-D.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  19. Crane J (2001) Induction of labour at term. J SOGC 23(8):717–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0849-5831(16)31465-320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. BORN Ontario (2018) BORN Data Dictionary. https://datadictionary.bornontario.ca/. Accessed 22 Oct 2018.

  21. Harron K, Dibben C, Boyd J, Hjern A, Azimaee M, Barreto ML, Goldstein H (2017) Challenges in administrative data linkage for research. Big Data Soc 4(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717745678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dusetzina SB, Tyree S, Meyer AM, Meyer A, Green L, Carpenter WR (2014) Linking data for health services research: a framework and instructional guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laganà AS, Vitale SG, Sapia F, Valenti G, Corrado F, Padula F, Rapisarda AMC, D’Anna R (2018) miRNA expression for early diagnosis of preeclampsia onset: hope or hype? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 31(6):817–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1296426.24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Laganà AS, Giordano D, Loddo S, Zoccali G, Vitale SG, Santamaria A, Buemi M, D'Anna R (2017) Decreased Endothelial Progenitor Cells (EPCs) and increased Natural Killer (NK) cells in peripheral blood as possible early markers of preeclampsia: a case-control analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:867–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4296-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schimmel MS, Bromiker R, Hammerman C, Chertman L, Ioscovich A, Granovsky-Grisaru S, Samueloff A, Elstein D (2015) The effects of maternal age and parity on maternal and neonatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291:793–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3469-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all BORN staff, especially Ms. Jessica Reszel, Ms. Catherine Riddell, Ms. Farzana Yasmin, Ms. Vivian Holmberg, Dr. Jill Wiley and Dr. Mary (Yanfang) Guo for their excellent comments and editing on this manuscript. We also thank CIHI for providing the CIHI-DAD data to BORN.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BORN Ontario, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Qun Miao, Sandra Dunn & Ann E. Sprague

  2. Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Qun Miao, Deshayne B. Fell, Sandra Dunn & Ann E. Sprague

  3. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Qun Miao & Deshayne B. Fell

  4. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Deshayne B. Fell

  5. School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Sandra Dunn & Ann E. Sprague

Authors
  1. Qun Miao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deshayne B. Fell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandra Dunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann E. Sprague
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Q Miao: project development, data management and analysis, manuscript writing and editing. DB Fell: project development, manuscript writing and editing. S Dunn: manuscript writing and editing. AE Sprague: project development, manuscript writing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qun Miao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by CIHI. However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed herein are those of the author(s), and not necessarily CIHI.

Ethical approval

As a quality assurance project, this data quality assessment was exempt from Research Ethics Board review in Canada.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Distribution of type of birth in BORN and CIHI-DAD in the linked dataset

  

BORN database

Live birth N (%)

Stillbirth N (%)

Total N (%)

CIHI-DAD

 Live birth, N (%)

404,291 (100)

61 (41.2)

404,352 (99.98)

 Stillbirth, N (%)

0

87 (58.8)

87 (0.02)

 Total, N (%)

404,291 (100)

148 (100)

404,439 (100%)

  1. There are more stillbirth records, but 148 with valid OHIP in linked dataset

Appendix B: Distribution of induction of labour (yes vs no) in BORN and CIHI-DAD in the linked dataset

  

BORN database

Yes, N (%)

No, N (%)

Total, N (%)

CIHI-DAD

 Yes, N (%)

80,723 (84.3)

17,006 (5.5)

97,729 (24.3)

 No, N (%)

14,994 (15.7)

289,829 (94.5)

304,823 (75.7)

 Total, N (%)

95,717 (100)

306,835 (100)

402,552 (100)

  1. In the CIHI-DAD, induction of labour was identified by an ICD-10-CA procedure code: “5.AC.30”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miao, Q., Fell, D.B., Dunn, S. et al. Agreement assessment of key maternal and newborn data elements between birth registry and Clinical Administrative Hospital Databases in Ontario, Canada. Arch Gynecol Obstet 300, 135–143 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05177-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05177-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation