Validity of operative information in Japanese administrative data: a chart review-based analysis of 1221 cases at a single institution

Takaaki Konishi*, Takako Yoshimoto, Michimasa Fujiogi, Hayato Yamana, Masahiko Tanabe, Yasuyuki Seto, Hideo Yasunaga

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the validity of operative information recorded in the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database, a national inpatient database including administrative claims data. Methods: We reviewed the medical charts of 1221 patients who underwent one of six surgeries (breast, esophageal, gastric, thyroid cancer surgery, appendectomy, or inguinal hernia repair) at a surgery department of a university hospital from April 2016 to March 2019. We compared operative information (type, date, laterality of procedure; type of anesthesia; transfusion; and duration of anesthesia) recorded in the DPC database with the information recorded in the medical charts. Results: The DPC data for type, date, laterality of surgery, and type of anesthesia were accurate in 99% of the reviewed patients. The sensitivity and specificity for identifying whether a patient received a transfusion procedure were 97.5% and 99.6%, respectively. Data regarding the duration of anesthesia in the DPC database were identical to those in medical chart records in 1114 of 1216 cases that received general or spinal anesthesia (91.5%). The duration of anesthesia in the DPC data was 53 min longer on average than the recorded operative time in the medical charts. Conclusion: The DPC database had high validity for operative information.

Original languageEnglish
JournalSurgery Today
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2022

Keywords

  • Administrative data
  • Anesthesia
  • Procedure
  • Surgery
  • Validation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of operative information in Japanese administrative data: a chart review-based analysis of 1221 cases at a single institution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this