10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of measures of comorbidity for predicting disability 12-months post-injury

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Understanding the factors that impact on disability is necessary to inform trauma care and enable adequate risk adjustment for benchmarking and monitoring. A key consideration is how to adjust for pre-existing conditions when assessing injury outcomes, and whether the inclusion of comorbidity is needed in addition to adjustment for age. This study compared different approaches to modelling the impact of comorbidity, collected as part of the routine hospital episode data, on disability outcomes following orthopaedic injury.

          Methods

          12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOS-E) outcomes for 13,519 survivors to discharge were drawn from the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry, a prospective cohort study of admitted orthopaedic injury patients. ICD-10-AM comorbidity codes were mapped to four comorbidity indices. Cases with a GOS-E score of 7–8 were considered “recovered”. A split dataset approach was used with cases randomly assigned to development or test datasets. Logistic regression models were fitted with “recovery” as the outcome and the performance of the models based on each comorbidity index (adjusted for injury and age) measured using calibration (Hosmer-Lemshow (H-L) statistics and calibration curves) and discrimination (Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC)) statistics.

          Results

          All comorbidity indices improved model fit over models with age and injuries sustained alone. None of the models demonstrated acceptable model calibration (H-L statistic p < 0.05 for all models). There was little difference between the discrimination of the indices for predicting recovery: Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.71); number of ICD-10 chapters represented (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.72); number of six frequent chronic conditions represented (AUC 0.70, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.71); and the Functional Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.69, 95% CI: 0.68, 0.71).

          Conclusions

          The presence of ICD-10 recorded comorbid conditions is an important predictor of long term functional outcome following orthopaedic injury and adjustment for comorbidity is indicated when assessing risk-adjusted functional outcomes over time or across jurisdictions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome.

          Physical function is an important measure of success of many medical and surgical interventions. Ability to adjust for comorbid disease is essential in health services research and epidemiologic studies. Current indices have primarily been developed with mortality as the outcome, and are not sensitive enough when the outcome is physical function. The objective of this study was to develop a self-administered Functional Comorbidity Index with physical function as the outcome. The index was developed using two databases: a cross-sectional, simple random sample of 9,423 Canadian adults and a sample of 28,349 US adults seeking treatment for spine ailments. The primary outcome measure was the SF-36 physical function (PF) subscale. The Functional Comorbidity Index, an 18-item list of diagnoses, showed stronger association with physical function (model R(2) = 0.29) compared with the Charlson (model R(2) = 0.18), and Kaplan-Feinstein (model R(2) = 0.07) indices. The Functional Comorbidity Index correctly classified patients into high and low function, in 77% of cases. This new index contains diagnoses such as arthritis not found on indices used to predict mortality, and the FCI explained more variance in PF scores compared to indices designed to predict mortality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality of diagnosis and procedure coding in ICD-10 administrative data.

            The International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision (ICD-10) was introduced worldwide beginning in the late 1990s. Because there have been no published data on the quality of coding using ICD-10, the aim of our analysis is to assess the quality of ICD-10 coding in routinely collected hospital discharge data from Australia, which began using ICD-10 in 1998. Audit data from the years 1998-1999 (n = 7004) and 2000-2001 (n = 7631), excluding same-day chemotherapy and dialysis cases, were used in data analysis. Quality measures included prevalence comparisons, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and the kappa statistic. Comparison of the audit sample to public hospital discharges showed little difference in age and gender, with audited cases more likely to be overnight stays. There was no difference in the median number of hospital assigned diagnosis and procedure codes per discharge. Agreement of the principal diagnosis code was 85% at the 3-digit level and 79% at the 4-digit level in 1998-1999; this rate had improved to 87% and 81% in 2000-2001. Principal procedure code agreement was 85% in 1998-1999 and 83% in 2000-2001 at the 5-digit level, and 81% and 80% at the 7-digit level, respectively. Specific major diagnoses, comorbid diagnoses, major procedures, and minor procedures showed good-to-excellent coding quality. The transition to ICD-10 has occurred with no loss of data quality, with data showing a high level of reliability and adherence to coding standards. When consideration is given to the nature of the analysis, administrative data can provide highly reliable population-based estimates of hospitalization rates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improved functional outcomes for major trauma patients in a regionalized, inclusive trauma system.

              To describe outcomes of major trauma survivors managed in an organized trauma system, including the association between levels of care and outcomes over time. Trauma care systems aim to reduce deaths and disability. Studies have found that regionalization of trauma care reduces mortality but the impact on quality of survival is unknown. Evaluation of a trauma system should include mortality and morbidity. Predictors of 12-month functional (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended) outcomes after blunt major trauma (Injury Severity Score >15) in an organized trauma system were explored using ordered logistic regression for the period October 2006 to June 2009. Data from the population-based Victorian State Trauma Registry were used. There were 4986 patients older than 18 years. In-hospital mortality decreased from 11.9% in 2006-2007 to 9.9% in 2008-2009. The follow-up rate at 12 months was 86% (n = 3824). Eighty percent reported functional limitations. Odds of better functional outcome increased in the 2007-2008 [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.41] and 2008-2009 (AOR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.34) years compared with 2006-2007. Cases managed at major trauma services (MTS) achieved better functional outcome (AOR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.45). Female gender, older age, and lower levels of education demonstrated lower adjusted odds of better outcome. Despite an annual decline in mortality, risk-adjusted functional outcomes improved over time, and cases managed at MTS (level-1 trauma centers) demonstrated better functional outcomes. The findings provide early evidence that this inclusive, regionalized trauma system is achieving its aims.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2013
                26 January 2013
                : 13
                : 30
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia
                [2 ]National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
                [3 ]Research Centre for Injury Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
                [4 ]College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia
                [6 ]Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                1472-6963-13-30
                10.1186/1472-6963-13-30
                3562274
                23351376
                c6aaf697-46a0-46fa-8e99-a69b73143e33
                Copyright ©2013 Gabbe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 8 June 2012
                : 23 January 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Health & Social care
                orthopaedic injury,comorbidity,disability outcomes,prediction
                Health & Social care
                orthopaedic injury, comorbidity, disability outcomes, prediction

                Comments

                Comment on this article