Working with Existing Databases

Melissa Murphy; Karim Alavi; Justin Maykel

doi:10.1055/s-0033-1333627

Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery, Table of Contents

Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2013; 26(01): 005-011
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1333627

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Working with Existing Databases

Authors

Melissa Murphy

¹Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
Karim Alavi

¹Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
Justin Maykel

¹Department of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts

Abstract

Outcomes research has established itself as an integral part of surgical research as physicians and hospitals are increasingly required to demonstrate attainment of performance markers and surgical safety indicators. Large-volume and clinical and administrative databases are used to study regional practice pattern variations, health care disparities, and resource utilization. Understanding the unique strengths and limitations of these large databases is critical to performing quality surgical outcomes research. In the current work, we review the currently available large-volume databases including selection processes, modes of analyses, data application, and limitations.

Keywords

outcomes - databases - administrative - research

Full Text

References

References
1 Rhodes RS, Biester TW. Certification and maintenance of certification in surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2007; 87 (4) 825-836 , vi
2 Birkmeyer JD, Shahian DM, Dimick JB , et al. Blueprint for a new American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207 (5) 777-782
3 Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD. Strategies for improving surgical quality—should payers reward excellence or effort?. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 (8) 864-870
4 Morris AM, Wei Y, Birkmeyer NJ, Birkmeyer JD. Racial disparities in late survival after rectal cancer surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203 (6) 787-794
5 Purves H, Pietrobon R, Hervey S, Guller U, Miller W, Ludwig K. Relationship between surgeon caseload and sphincter preservation in patients with rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2005; 48 (2) 195-202 , discussion 202–204
6 Deyo RA, Taylor VM, Diehr P , et al. Analysis of automated administrative and survey databases to study patterns and outcomes of care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994; 19 (18, Suppl) 2083S-2091S
7 Abdullah F, Ortega G, Islam S , et al. Outcomes research in pediatric surgery. Part 1: overview and resources. J Pediatr Surg 2011; 46 (1) 221-225
8 Greenblatt DY, Rajamanickam V, Pugely AJ, Heise CP, Foley EF, Kennedy GD. Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer: results from the ACS NSQIP. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 212 (5) 844-854
9 Schrag D, Panageas KS, Riedel E , et al. Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection. J Surg Oncol 2003; 83 (2) 68-78 , discussion 78–79
10 Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 1998; 280 (20) 1747-1751
11 Motheral BR, Fairman KA. The use of claims databases for outcomes research: rationale, challenges, and strategies. Clin Ther 1997; 19 (2) 346-366
12 Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Hall BL. Development of an American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program: morbidity and mortality risk calculator for colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208 (6) 1009-1016
13 Chang DC, Talamini MA. A review for clinical outcomes research: hypothesis generation, data strategy, and hypothesis-driven statistical analysis. Surg Endosc 2011; 25 (7) 2254-2260
14 Jollis JG, Ancukiewicz M, DeLong ER, Pryor DB, Muhlbaier LH, Mark DB. Discordance of databases designed for claims payment versus clinical information systems. Implications for outcomes research. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119 (8) 844-850
15 Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Stange KC, Dennis LK, Amini SB, Rimm AA. Agreement of Medicare claims and tumor registry data for assessment of cancer-related treatment. Med Care 2000; 38 (4) 411-421
16 Best WR, Khuri SF, Phelan M , et al. Identifying patient preoperative risk factors and postoperative adverse events in administrative databases: results from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 2002; 194 (3) 257-266
17 Fisher ES, Baron JA, Malenka DJ, Barrett J, Bubolz TA. Overcoming potential pitfalls in the use of Medicare data for epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health 1990; 80 (12) 1487-1490
18 Medicaid Available at: http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Population/By-Population.html . Accessed May 29, 2012
19 Research Data Assistance Center (ResDAC) Available at: http://www.resdac.org . Accessed May 29, 2012
20 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Overview of HCUP: Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/overview.jsp . Accessed May 29, 2012
21 Weiss JM, Pfau PR, O'Connor ES , et al. Mortality by stage for right- versus left-sided colon cancer: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results—Medicare data. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29 (33) 4401-4409
22 Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/about/overview.html . Accessed May 30, 2012
23 SEER*Stat Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/ . Accessed May 29, 2012
24 Ozhathil DK, Li Y, Smith JK , et al. Colectomy performance improvement within NSQIP 2005-2008. J Surg Res 2011; 171 (1) e9-e13