Cargando…

Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes

BACKGROUND: Use of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the refere...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lam, Ngan N., Lentine, Krista L., Klarenbach, Scott, Sood, Manish M., Kuwornu, Paul J., Naylor, Kyla L., Knoll, Gregory A., Kim, S. Joseph, Young, Ann, Garg, Amit X.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2054358118760833
_version_ 1783313872947511296
author Lam, Ngan N.
Lentine, Krista L.
Klarenbach, Scott
Sood, Manish M.
Kuwornu, Paul J.
Naylor, Kyla L.
Knoll, Gregory A.
Kim, S. Joseph
Young, Ann
Garg, Amit X.
author_facet Lam, Ngan N.
Lentine, Krista L.
Klarenbach, Scott
Sood, Manish M.
Kuwornu, Paul J.
Naylor, Kyla L.
Knoll, Gregory A.
Kim, S. Joseph
Young, Ann
Garg, Amit X.
author_sort Lam, Ngan N.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Use of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the reference standard of manual chart review. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Living kidney donors between 2003 and 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). METHODS: Using administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the validity of diagnostic and procedural codes for living donor nephrectomies. The reference standard was living donor nephrectomies identified through the province’s tissue and organ procurement agency, with verification by manual chart review. Operating characteristics (sensitivity and PPV) of various algorithms using diagnostic, procedural, and physician billing codes were calculated. RESULTS: During the study period, there were a total of 1199 living donor nephrectomies. Overall, the best algorithm for identifying living kidney donors was the presence of 1 diagnostic code for kidney donor (ICD-10 Z52.4) and 1 procedural code for kidney procurement/excision (1PC58, 1PC89, 1PC91). Compared with the reference standard, this algorithm had a sensitivity of 97% and a PPV of 90%. The diagnostic and procedural codes performed better than the physician billing codes (sensitivity 60%, PPV 78%). LIMITATIONS: The donor chart review and validation study was performed in Ontario and may not be generalizable to other regions. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm consisting of 1 diagnostic and 1 procedural code can be reliably used to conduct health services research that requires the accurate determination of living kidney donors at the population level.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5896849
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58968492018-04-16 Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes Lam, Ngan N. Lentine, Krista L. Klarenbach, Scott Sood, Manish M. Kuwornu, Paul J. Naylor, Kyla L. Knoll, Gregory A. Kim, S. Joseph Young, Ann Garg, Amit X. Can J Kidney Health Dis Original Research Article BACKGROUND: Use of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the reference standard of manual chart review. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Living kidney donors between 2003 and 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). METHODS: Using administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the validity of diagnostic and procedural codes for living donor nephrectomies. The reference standard was living donor nephrectomies identified through the province’s tissue and organ procurement agency, with verification by manual chart review. Operating characteristics (sensitivity and PPV) of various algorithms using diagnostic, procedural, and physician billing codes were calculated. RESULTS: During the study period, there were a total of 1199 living donor nephrectomies. Overall, the best algorithm for identifying living kidney donors was the presence of 1 diagnostic code for kidney donor (ICD-10 Z52.4) and 1 procedural code for kidney procurement/excision (1PC58, 1PC89, 1PC91). Compared with the reference standard, this algorithm had a sensitivity of 97% and a PPV of 90%. The diagnostic and procedural codes performed better than the physician billing codes (sensitivity 60%, PPV 78%). LIMITATIONS: The donor chart review and validation study was performed in Ontario and may not be generalizable to other regions. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm consisting of 1 diagnostic and 1 procedural code can be reliably used to conduct health services research that requires the accurate determination of living kidney donors at the population level. SAGE Publications 2018-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5896849/ /pubmed/29662679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2054358118760833 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Lam, Ngan N.
Lentine, Krista L.
Klarenbach, Scott
Sood, Manish M.
Kuwornu, Paul J.
Naylor, Kyla L.
Knoll, Gregory A.
Kim, S. Joseph
Young, Ann
Garg, Amit X.
Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes
title Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes
title_full Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes
title_fullStr Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes
title_full_unstemmed Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes
title_short Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes
title_sort validation of living donor nephrectomy codes
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5896849/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2054358118760833
work_keys_str_mv AT lamngann validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT lentinekristal validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT klarenbachscott validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT soodmanishm validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT kuwornupaulj validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT naylorkylal validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT knollgregorya validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT kimsjoseph validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT youngann validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes
AT gargamitx validationoflivingdonornephrectomycodes