Registry and health insurance claims data in vascular research and quality improvement
Standard
Registry and health insurance claims data in vascular research and quality improvement. / Behrendt, Christian-Alexander; Heidemann, Franziska; Rieß, Henrik Christian; Stoberock, Konstanze; Debus, Sebastian Eike.
in: VASA, Jahrgang 46, Nr. 1, 01.2017, S. 11-15.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Review › Forschung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Registry and health insurance claims data in vascular research and quality improvement
AU - Behrendt, Christian-Alexander
AU - Heidemann, Franziska
AU - Rieß, Henrik Christian
AU - Stoberock, Konstanze
AU - Debus, Sebastian Eike
PY - 2017/1
Y1 - 2017/1
N2 - The expansion of procedures in multidisciplinary vascular medicine has sparked a controversy regarding measures of quality improvement. In addition to primary registries, the use of health insurance claims data is becoming of increasing importance. However, due to the fact that health insurance claims data are not collected for scientific evaluation but rather for reimbursement purposes, meticulous validation is necessary before and during usage in research and quality improvement matters. This review highlights the advantages and disadvantages of such data sources. A recent comprehensive expert opinion panel examined the use of health insurance claims data and other administrative data sources in medicine. Results from several studies concerning the validity of administrative data varied significantly. Validity of these data sources depends on the clinical relevance of the diagnoses considered. The rate of implausible information was 0.04 %, while the validity of the considered diagnoses varied between 80 and 97 % across multiple validation studies. A matching study between health insurance claims data of the third-largest German health insurance provider, DAK-Gesundheit, and a prospective primary registry of the German Society for Vascular Surgery demonstrated a good level of validity regarding the mortality of endovascular and open surgical treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in German hospitals. In addition, a large-scale international comparison of administrative data for the same disorder presented important results in treatment reality, which differed from those from earlier randomized controlled trials. The importance of administrative data for research and quality improvement will continue to increase in the future. When discussing the internal and external validity of this data source, one has to distinguish not only between its intended usage (research vs. quality improvement), but also between the included diseases and/or treatment procedures. Linkage between primary registry data and administrative data could be a reasonable solution to some current major issues of validity. .
AB - The expansion of procedures in multidisciplinary vascular medicine has sparked a controversy regarding measures of quality improvement. In addition to primary registries, the use of health insurance claims data is becoming of increasing importance. However, due to the fact that health insurance claims data are not collected for scientific evaluation but rather for reimbursement purposes, meticulous validation is necessary before and during usage in research and quality improvement matters. This review highlights the advantages and disadvantages of such data sources. A recent comprehensive expert opinion panel examined the use of health insurance claims data and other administrative data sources in medicine. Results from several studies concerning the validity of administrative data varied significantly. Validity of these data sources depends on the clinical relevance of the diagnoses considered. The rate of implausible information was 0.04 %, while the validity of the considered diagnoses varied between 80 and 97 % across multiple validation studies. A matching study between health insurance claims data of the third-largest German health insurance provider, DAK-Gesundheit, and a prospective primary registry of the German Society for Vascular Surgery demonstrated a good level of validity regarding the mortality of endovascular and open surgical treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in German hospitals. In addition, a large-scale international comparison of administrative data for the same disorder presented important results in treatment reality, which differed from those from earlier randomized controlled trials. The importance of administrative data for research and quality improvement will continue to increase in the future. When discussing the internal and external validity of this data source, one has to distinguish not only between its intended usage (research vs. quality improvement), but also between the included diseases and/or treatment procedures. Linkage between primary registry data and administrative data could be a reasonable solution to some current major issues of validity. .
KW - Administrative Claims, Healthcare
KW - Data Accuracy
KW - Data Mining
KW - Germany
KW - Health Services Research
KW - Humans
KW - Quality Improvement
KW - Quality Indicators, Health Care
KW - Registries
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - Vascular Diseases/diagnosis
U2 - 10.1024/0301-1526/a000589
DO - 10.1024/0301-1526/a000589
M3 - SCORING: Review article
C2 - 27871211
VL - 46
SP - 11
EP - 15
JO - VASA
JF - VASA
SN - 0301-1526
IS - 1
ER -