Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 161, Issue 6, pp 1057–1065 | Cite as

Establishing risk-adjusted quality indicators in surgery using administrative data—an example from neurosurgery

  • Stephanie SchipmannEmail author
  • Julian Varghese
  • Tobias Brix
  • Michael Schwake
  • Dennis Keurhorst
  • Sebastian Lohmann
  • Eric Suero Molina
  • Uwe Max Mauer
  • Martin Dugas
  • Nils Warneke
  • Walter Stummer
Original Article - Neurosurgery general
  • 153 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Neurosurgery general

Abstract

Background

The current draft of the German Hospital Structure Law requires remuneration to incorporate quality indicators. For neurosurgery, several quality indicators have been discussed, such as 30-day readmission, reoperation, or mortality rates; the rates of infections; or the length of stay. When comparing neurosurgical departments regarding these indicators, very heterogeneous patient spectrums complicate benchmarking due to the lack of risk adjustment.

Objective

In this study, we performed an analysis of quality indicators and possible risk adjustment, based only on administrative data.

Methods

All adult patients that were treated as inpatients for a brain or spinal tumour at our neurosurgical department between 2013 and 2017 were assessed for the abovementioned quality indicators. DRG-related data such as relative weight, PCCL (patient clinical complexity level), ICD-10 major diagnosis category, secondary diagnoses, age and sex were obtained. The age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was calculated. Logistic regression analyses were performed in order to correlate quality indicators with administrative data.

Results

Overall, 2623 cases were enrolled into the study. Most patients were treated for glioma (n = 1055, 40.2%). The CCI did not correlate with the quality indicators, whereas PCCL showed a positive correlation with 30-day readmission and reoperation, SSI and nosocomial infection rates.

Conclusion

All previously discussed quality indicators are easily derived from administrative data. Administrative data alone might not be sufficient for adequate risk adjustment as they do not reflect the endogenous risk of the patient and are influenced by certain complications during inpatient stay. Appropriate concepts for risk adjustment should be compiled on the basis of prospectively designed registry studies.

Keywords

Quality indicators Neurosurgery Readmission Reoperation Risk adjustment Administrative data 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standard

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the local ethic committee. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher AL, McCormick PC, Selden NR, Ghogawala Z, McGirt MJ (2013) The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database and NeuroPoint Alliance: rationale, development, and implementation. Neurosurg Focus 34:E2.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.FOCUS12311 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher AL, Parker SL, Rolston JD, Selden NR, McGirt MJ (2015) Using clinical registries to improve the quality of neurosurgical care. Neurosurg Clin N Am 26:253–263, ix-x.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2014.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buhr HJ, Hardt J, Klinger C, Seyfried F, Wiegering A, Dietrich A, Bartsch DK, Lorenz D, Post S, Germer CT, Keck T, Wellner U (2018) Quality indicators with reference values and threshold limits in general and visceral surgery : for obesity and metabolic, pancreatic, colon carcinoma and rectal carcinoma surgery. Chirurg 89:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0562-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cusimano MD, Pshonyak I, Lee MY, Ilie G (2017) A systematic review of 30-day readmission after cranial neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 127:342–352.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.7.JNS152226 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dasenbrock HH, Liu KX, Devine CA, Chavakula V, Smith TR, Gormley WB, Dunn IF (2015) Length of hospital stay after craniotomy for tumor: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis. Neurosurg Focus 39:E12.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.10.FOCUS15386 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM (2003) How to measure comorbidity. A critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 56:221–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frenkel WJ, Jongerius EJ, Mandjes-van Uitert MJ, van Munster BC, de Rooij SE (2014) Validation of the Charlson Comorbidity Index in acutely hospitalized elderly adults: a prospective cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc 62:342–346.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12635 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghali WA, Quan H, Brant R (2001) Risk adjustment using administrative data: impact of a diagnosis-type indicator. J Gen Intern Med 16:519–524CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glassman S, Carreon LY, Andersen M, Asher A, Eiskjaer S, Gehrchen M, Imagama S, Ishii K, Kaito T, Matsuyama Y, Moridaira H, Mummaneni P, Shaffrey C, Matsumoto M (2017) Predictors of hospital readmission and surgical site infection in the United States, Denmark, and Japan: is risk stratification a universal language? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:1311–1315.  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heller G (2008) Zur Messung und Darstellung von medizinischer Ergebnisqualität mit administrativen Routinedaten in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt-Gesundheitsforschung-Gesundheitsschutz:1173–1182Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iezzoni LI (1997) Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 127:666–674CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ingraham A, Nathens A, Peitzman A, Bode A, Dorlac G, Dorlac W, Miller P, Sadeghi M, Wasserman DD, Bilimoria K, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Emergency General Surgery Quality Indicator Development Expert P (2017) Assessment of emergency general surgery care based on formally developed quality indicators. Surgery 162:397–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2017.03.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennedy A, Bakir C, Brauer CA (2012) Quality indicators in pediatric orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1124–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2060-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marventano S, Grosso G, Mistretta A, Bogusz-Czerniewicz M, Ferranti R, Nolfo F, Giorgianni G, Rametta S, Drago F, Basile F, Biondi A (2014) Evaluation of four comorbidity indices and Charlson comorbidity index adjustment for colorectal cancer patients. Int J Color Dis 29:1159–1169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1972-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGirt MJ, Speroff T, Dittus RS, Harrell FE Jr, Asher AL (2013) The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): general overview and pilot-year project description. Neurosurg Focus 34:E6.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.FOCUS12297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McLaughlin N, Jin P, Martin NA (2015) Assessing early unplanned reoperations in neurosurgery: opportunities for quality improvement. J Neurosurg 123:198–205.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.9.JNS14666 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moghavem N, Morrison D, Ratliff JK, Hernandez-Boussard T (2015) Cranial neurosurgical 30-day readmissions by clinical indication. J Neurosurg 123:189–197.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.12.JNS14447 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nimptsch U (2016) Disease-specific trends of comorbidity coding and implications for risk adjustment in hospital administrative data. Health Serv Res 51:981–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12398 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schipmann S, Schwake M, Suero Molina E, Roeder N, Steudel WI, Warneke N, Stummer W (2017) Quality indicators in cranial neurosurgery: which are presently substantiated? A systematic review. World Neurosurg 104:104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt HM, Gisbertz SS, Moons J, Rouvelas I, Kauppi J, Brown A, Asti E, Luyer M, Lagarde SM, Berlth F, Philippron A, Bruns C, Holscher A, Schneider PM, Raptis DA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Nafteux P, Nilsson M, Rasanen J, Palazzo F, Rosato E, Mercer S, Bonavina L, Nieuwenhuijzen G, Wijnhoven BPL, Schroder W, Pattyn P, Grimminger PP, Gutschow CA (2017) Defining benchmarks for transthoracic esophagectomy: a multicenter analysis of Total minimally invasive esophagectomy in low risk patients. Ann Surg 266:814–821.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002445 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shah MN, Stoev IT, Sanford DE, Gao F, Santiago P, Jaques DP, Dacey RG Jr (2013) Are readmission rates on a neurosurgical service indicators of quality of care? J Neurosurg 119:1043–1049.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.3.JNS121769 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shih T, Dimick JB (2014) Reliability of readmission rates as a hospital quality measure in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 97:1214–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.11.048 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Society of British Neurological Surgeons (2018) Neurosurgical National Audit Programme. Accessed 1407.2018 2018Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsai TC, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Gawande AA, Jha AK (2013) Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care. N Engl J Med 369:1134–1142.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1303118 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wiegering A, Wellner U, Seyfried F, Hardt J, Klinger C, Buhr H, Post S (2017) MTL30 as surrogate parameter for quality of surgically treated diseases : establishment based on the StuDoQ register of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery. Chirurg 88:977–982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-017-0479-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang CC, Chen PC, Hsu CW, Chang SL, Lee CC (2015) Validity of the age-adjusted charlson comorbidity index on clinical outcomes for patients with nasopharyngeal cancer post radiation treatment: a 5-year nationwide cohort study. PLoS One 10:e0117323.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117323 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Schipmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julian Varghese
    • 2
  • Tobias Brix
    • 2
  • Michael Schwake
    • 1
  • Dennis Keurhorst
    • 1
  • Sebastian Lohmann
    • 1
  • Eric Suero Molina
    • 1
  • Uwe Max Mauer
    • 3
  • Martin Dugas
    • 2
  • Nils Warneke
    • 1
  • Walter Stummer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical InformaticsUniversity Hospital MünsterMünsterGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeurosurgeryGerman Armed Forces Hospital UlmUlmGermany

Personalised recommendations