How to evaluate and improve the quality and credibility of an outcomes database: validation and feedback study on the UK Cardiac Surgery Experience

Fine, Leon G.; Keogh, Bruce; Cretin, Shan; Orlando, Maria; Gould, Mairi

doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.25

Cited by 63 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Problems with the coverage and quality of data have been a major barrier to progress in the United Kingdom, and a recent study of the quality of U.K. cardiac surgery data, supported by the Nuffield Trust, demonstrated some large inconsistencies among various data sources, even for an outcome as apparently unequivocal as death. 19 There are plans to rectify this with a major investment in information technology over the next three years.…”

Section: Quality Reporting In the United Kingdommentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Reporting On Quality In The United States And The United Kingdom

Marshall

Shekelle²,

Davies³

et al. 2003

Health Affairs

180

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PROLOGUE:Report cards represent one of the most publicly visible aspects of hospitals' quality improvement efforts, and they are not without controversy. Media coverage often overreacts to low "grades" given to hospitals in a region. Providers find ways to stack the decks, selecting the healthiest patients to improve their scores. Purchasers look only at costs, and consumers either can't figure them out or ignore them completely. At least, this is the popular perception. The need for basic research to develop accurate and useful quality-related performance measures continues, but quality report cards are here to stay.Problems, challenges, obstacles, and innovations mark the trail, but there is incremental progress toward widespread use of quality report cards in the United States and the United Kingdom, as Martin Marshall and his colleagues report. In the United States a strong emphasis on informing consumer choice and controlling costs has guided reporting. Different traditions and incentives are at work across the Atlantic. The two countries have much to learn from each other as they move toward greater accountability and quality in health care.

show abstract

Section: Quality Reporting In the United Kingdommentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Reporting On Quality In The United States And The United Kingdom

Marshall

Shekelle²,

Davies³

et al. 2003

Health Affairs

180

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 The methods used in this paper could be routinely used to screen administrative hospital data to identify where detailed audits with feedback might be implemented with best effect. In Queensland, these results have led to further work, which will concentrate on developing strategies to improve documentation and coding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interstate comparisons of public hospital outputs using DRGs: Are they fair?

Coory

Cornes

2005

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conclusions:The task of perfecting a national database is never complete and it makes sense to super impose a permanent cycle of monitoring, followed by more detailed audits. The methods used in this paper could be routinely used to screen administrative hospital data to identify where detailed audits with feedback might be implemented with best effect. Unless interstate variation in the reporting and coding of important additional diagnoses is reduced, measuring public hospital outputs using DRGs will be of limited value at a national level.

show abstract

“…These services include Transportable Tablespaces (TTS), Trasportable Databases (TDB), Data Pump, and Recovery Manager (RMAN). Validation in migration is a very important aspect as well, studies looked at migration from a testing/validation perspective [48][49][50]. Similarly, several other online articles written by Scheier [51], Burry [52], Klazema [53], and Levine [54] discussed the average process and common errors of data migration, but none of the methods injected validation into streaming or paid attention to its risks and increased importance.…”

Section: The Model For Federal Analytical Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive model for management and validation of federal big data analytical systems

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In this era of data science, many software vendors are rushing towards providing better solutions for data management, analytics, validation and security. The government, being one of the most important customers, is riding the wave of data and business intelligence. However, federal agencies have certain requirements and bureaucracies for data-related processes, certain rules and specific regulations that would entail special models for building and managing data analytical systems. In this paper, and based on work done at the US government, a model for data management and validation is introduced: Federal Model for Data Management and Validation (FedDMV). FedDMV is 4-step model that has a set of best practices, databases, software tools and analytics. Automated procedures are used to develop the system and maintain it, and association rules are used for improving its quality. Results: After working with multiple engineers and analysts at the federal agency, there is a general consent that FedDMV is easy to follow (please refer to the experimental survey). However, to quantify that satisfaction, three experimental studies were performed. One is a comparison to other state-of-the-art development models at the government, the second one is a survey that was collected at the government to quantify the level of satisfaction regarding FedDMV and its tool; and finally, a data validation study was performed through detailed testing of the federal system (using an Association Rules algorithm).

show abstract

How to evaluate and improve the quality and credibility of an outcomes database: validation and feedback study on the UK Cardiac Surgery Experience

Abstract: Objectives To assess the quality and completeness of a database of clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery and to determine whether a process of validation, monitoring, and feedback could improve the quality of the database.

Cited by 63 publications

References 3 publications

Public Reporting On Quality In The United States And The United Kingdom

Public Reporting On Quality In The United States And The United Kingdom

Interstate comparisons of public hospital outputs using DRGs: Are they fair?

A comprehensive model for management and validation of federal big data analytical systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About