No abstract

BackgroundQUALICOPC is an international survey of primary care performance. QUALICOPC data have been used in several studies, yet the representativeness of the Canadian QUALICOPC survey is unknown, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. This study examined the representativeness of QUALICOPC physician and patient respondents in Ontario using health administrative data.MethodsThis representativeness study linked QUALICOPC physician and patient respondents in Ontario to health administrative databases at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Physician respondents were compared to other physicians in their practice group and all Ontario primary care physicians on demographic and practice characteristics. Patient respondents were compared to other patients rostered to their primary care physicians, patients rostered to their physicians’ practice groups, and a random sample of Ontario residents on sociodemographic characteristics, morbidity, and health care utilization. Standardized differences were calculated to compare the distribution of characteristics across cohorts.ResultsQUALICOPC physician respondents included a higher proportion of younger, female physicians and Canadian medical graduates compared to other Ontario primary care physicians. A higher proportion of physician respondents practiced in Family Health Team models, compared to the provincial proportion for primary care physicians. QUALICOPC patient respondents were more likely to be older and female, with significantly higher levels of morbidity and health care utilization, compared with the other patient groups examined. However, when looking at the QUALICOPC physicians’ whole rosters, rather than just the patient survey respondents, the practice profiles were similar to those of the other physicians in their practice groups and Ontario patients in general.ConclusionsComparisons revealed some differences in responding physicians’ demographic and practice characteristics, as well as differences in responding patients’ characteristics compared to the other patient groups tested, which may have resulted from the visit-based sampling strategy. Ontario QUALICOPC physicians had similar practice profiles as compared to non-participating physicians, providing some evidence that the participating practices are representative of other non-participating practices, and patients selected by visit-based sampling may also be representative of visiting patients in other practices. Those using QUALICOPC data should understand this limited representativeness when generalizing results, and consider the potential for bias in their analyses.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0767-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

The lack of consensus on the best methodology for identifying cases of non-traumatic spinal cord dysfunction (NTSCD) in administrative health data limits the ability to determine the burden of disease and provide evidence-informed services. The purpose of this study is to develop an algorithm for identifying cases of NTSCD with Canadian health administrative databases using a case-based approach. Data were provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information that included all acute care hospital and day surgery (Discharge Abstract Database), ambulatory (National Ambulatory Care Reporting System), and inpatient rehabilitation records (National Rehabilitation Reporting System) of patients with neurological impairment (paraplegia, tetraplegia, and cauda equina syndrome) between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2011. The approach to identify cases of NTSCD involved using a combination of diagnostic codes for neurological impairment and NTSCD etiology. Of the initial cohort of 23,703 patients with neurological impairment, we classified 6,362 as the "most likely NTSCD" group (had a most responsible diagnosis or pre-existing diagnosis of NTSCD and diagnosis of neurological impairment); 2,777 as "probable NTSCD" defined as having a secondary diagnosis of NTSCD, and 11,179 as "possible NTSCD" who had no NTSCD etiology diagnoses but neurological impairment codes. The proposed algorithm identifies an inpatient NTSCD cohort that is limited to patients with significant paralysis. This feasibility study is the first in a series of 3 that has the potential to inform future research initiatives to accurately determine the incidence and prevalence of NTSCD.