Validation of an Electronic Algorithm to Identify Candidates for Colon Surgical Site Infection Review JA Yegge 1, K Gase 1, M Hohrein 1, H Xu 1, R Khoury.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
VALIDATING AHRQ PATIENT SAFETY INDICATORS with the VA NATIONAL SURGICAL QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM POSTOPERATIVE ADVERSE EVENTS Dennis Tsilimingras, M.D.,
Advertisements

Estimating the Level of Underreporting of Expenditures among Expenditure Reporters: A Further Micro-Level Latent Class Analysis Clyde Tucker Bureau of.
Indices Learning objective: To understand the basic rules of indices - all To investigate powers of 0 and 1 - most To investigate negative powers - some.
Population Trends in the Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Robert W. Yeh, MD MSc Massachusetts General Hospital Alan S. Go, MD Kaiser.
Epidemiology and benefit to patients from accurate coding Heather Walker CHKS Consultancy and Marketing Director 4 th May 2012.
Abstract Results continued Reference 1 McDonald LC, Coignard B, Dubberke E, et al. Recommendations for Surveillance of Clostridium difficile-Associated.
Improved Reflexive Testing Algorithm for Hepatitis C Infection Using Signal-to-Cutoff Ratios of a Hepatitis C Virus Antibody Assay K.K.Y. Lai, M. Jin,
Development and Testing of a Risk Assessment Model for Venous Thrombosis in Medical Inpatients: The Medical Inpatients and Thrombosis (MITH) Study Score.
Area 4 SHARP Face-to-Face Conference Phenotyping Team – Centerphase Project Assessing the Value of Phenotyping Algorithms June 30, 2011.
Azita Kheiltash Social Medicine Specialist Tehran University of Medical Sciences Diagnostic Tests Evaluation.
Every colon procedure (identified by ICD-9 code) performed between 10/1/ /31/2012 at 10 BJC Healthcare system adult hospitals were included. The.
Quantitative validation of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in Oregon intensive care units (ICU) 2009 Zintars Beldavs Manager HAI.
Gateway to the Future: Improving the National Vital Statistics System St. Louis, MO June 6 th – June 10 th, 2010 Automated Influenza and Pneumonia Reporting.
Concordance of HIV surveillance and medical record data: What do CD4 and viral loads not tell us about linkage to HIV care? Charu Sabharwal, MD MPH Medical.
Case Report Form Start-up Meeting March 25, 2010 Kingston, ON.
Baye’s Rule and Medical Screening Tests. Baye’s Rule Baye’s Rule is used in medicine and epidemiology to calculate the probability that an individual.
Findings from the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) 2010 Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI) Data Audit Project Andrea Alvarez,
Clinical Management Nutr 564: Management Summer 2005.
Washington State’s Approach: From CLABSI to SSI CSTE Annual Conference, 2013 David Birnbaum, PhD, MPH.
What is Screening? Basic Public Health Concepts Sheila West, Ph.D. El Maghraby Professor of Ophthalmology Wilmer Eye Institute Johns Hopkins University.
Patient Safety and Public Health Informatics Iona Thraen, ACSW Patient Safety Director.
Surveillance… Changing Hats Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) Greater New York Chapter 13 Sandra Hardy, MA, RN.
Implementing Surgical Surveillance with icnet ng.
Update SB 288: Health Care Associated Infections Infectious Disease Epidemiology Workgroup Jan. 9, 2009 Austin, Texas Gary Heseltine MD MPH Infectious.
POSITIVE PREDICTIVE VALUE OF AHRQ PATIENT SAFETY INDICATORS IN A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF HOSPITALS AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting June 9, 2008 Team presenter:
 Ascertainment of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes via physician review of medical records using a standardized case definition aims to maximize data quality,
Dipstick Screening for Urinary Tract Infection in Febrile Infants Journal Club Tuesday 15 th July 2014 Charlotte Elder.
1 Terri Conner,PhD Nybeck Analytics Partnership for Patients 14 th May 2012 USE OF MEDICARE DIAGNOSIS AND PROCEDURE CODES TO IMPROVE DETECTION OF SURGICAL.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Advancing Excellence in Health Care Improving Administrative Data for Public Reporting Anne Elixhauser.
NHSN Data Submission Requirements 2013 Health Care Excel Cathie Pritchard LPN, RHIT Quality Data Reporting Technologist October 12, 2012.
NHSN SSI Clarifications Janet Sullivan, Oregon SW Washington APIC Jeanne Negley, Oregon Health Policy & Research.
Statistics for Health Care Biostatistics. Phases of a Full Clinical Trial Phase I – the trial takes place after the development of a therapy and is designed.
What do we know about overall trends in patient safety in the USA? Patrick S. Romano, MD MPH Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics University of California,
Evaluation of routine data sources for ascertainment of hypospadias cases Congenital Anomaly Register for Oxfordshire, Berkshire, and Buckinghamshire (CAROBB)
Illinois Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAI) Plan Mary Fornek January 21, 2010 Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Screening and Advocating Empiric Therapy for Asymptomatic Bacteriuria.
The Positive Predictive Value of World Health Organization (WHO) Immunologic Criteria for Treatment Failure in a Public Health Antiretroviral Delivery.
Zintars Beldavs, MS Manager Healthcare-Associated Infections Program
Acknowledgements Contact Information Anthony Wong, MTech 1, Senthil K. Nachimuthu, MD 1, Peter J. Haug, MD 1,2 Patterns and Rules  Vital signs medoids.
Author Classification of ARVO Conference Abstracts as Controlled Clinical Trials Roberta W. Scherer 1, Pamela C. Sieving 2, and Kay Dickersin 1, Johns.
CDC Site Visit at Emory CHD Surveillance Cooperative Agreement Data Quality & Validation September 25, 2013 Wendy Book, MD.
Studying Health Care: Some ICD-10 Tools Hude Quan, Nicole Fehr, Leslie Roos University of Calgary and Manitoba Centre for Health Policy.
Health Care Associated Infections Advisory Panel (HAI) Update Infectious Disease Epidemiology Workgroup June 27, 2008 Austin, Texas Wes Hodgson, MPA Infectious.
Unit 15: Screening. Unit 15 Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Screening.  “...the identification of unrecognized disease or defect by the application of tests, examinations or other procedures...”  “...sort out.
Medical University of Vienna Jeroen S. de Bruin Validation of Fuzzy Logic in Infection Surveillance Jeroen S. de Bruin, Alexander Blacky, Walter Koller,
The Effects of Intravenous Acetaminophen Use on Robot-Assisted Pelvic Surgery Patients Nichole Witmyer, Pharm.D. St. Dominic Hospital Jackson, Mississippi.
WHO-Collaborating Centre in Calgary Thursday May 14 th, 2015 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada Dr. Bedirhan Ustun from the WHO attended and presented Dr. Hude.
Screening Tests: A Review. Learning Objectives: 1.Understand the role of screening in the secondary prevention of disease. 2.Recognize the characteristics.
Internal Coding Auditing Programs Gloria Litton, RHIA, CCS AHIMA Approved ICD-10-CM/PCS Trainer.
MIPS Quality Component
DR.FATIMA ALKHALEDY M.B.Ch.B;F.I.C.M.S/C.M
Phenotyping youth depression
Lead Poisoning Cases Identified
METHOD RESULTS CONCLUSION
WHO Collaborating Centre in Calgary, Canada
Utilizing the Candida Score to Identify Patients at Increased Risk for
Chart confirmation rate (%)
hospitalized with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
What is Screening? Basic Public Health Concepts Sheila West, Ph.D.
APIC Chapter 13 Journal Club
What is Screening? Basic Public Health Concepts Sheila West, Ph.D.
CNISP & CIHI MRSA infection rate comparison Preliminary results
Figure 1. Table for calculating the accuracy of a diagnostic test.
Multivariable Logistic Regression Split Cohort into Development &
Division of Viral Hepatitis, CDC
Anindita Das, Karina Kennedy, Gloria Spyropoulos, Peter Collignon 
Anindita Das, Karina Kennedy, Gloria Spyropoulos, Peter Collignon 
Operational successes and barriers
pragmatic asthma studies
Presentation transcript:

Validation of an Electronic Algorithm to Identify Candidates for Colon Surgical Site Infection Review JA Yegge 1, K Gase 1, M Hohrein 1, H Xu 1, R Khoury 1, H Babcock 2 1 BJC HealthCare, St. Louis MO, 2 Washington University, St. Louis, MO Background/Objectives: In response to an increasing surveillance burden, an electronic algorithm was developed in 2009 to identify candidates for surgical site infection (SSI) review. The algorithm rules look for readmissions after a qualifying procedure in addition to cultures, antibiotic starts and ICD-9 infection codes. The objective of this study was to examine the algorithm’s accuracy as a surveillance method for colon SSIs. Methods: Colon procedures (identified by ICD-9 code) performed in 4th quarter 2012 at 10 adult hospitals in a single healthcare system were included. The medical records were screened by a single clinical abstractor and based on that abstraction a single Infection Preventionist reviewed procedures identified as potentially infected to determine infection status. Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results: 417 colon procedures were identified. The electronic algorithm triggered at least one rule for 115 (28%) procedures; 17 (15% yield) infected cases were confirmed by review. There was one infected case identified in the 302 procedures that did not trigger any rules. Algorithm sensitivity was 94.5% and specificity was 100%. The positive predictive value was 100% and the negative predictive value was 99.75%. Conclusions: These results confirm that the algorithm is highly effective in rejecting true negatives for further evaluation and capturing true positives within the subset identified for infection investigation. Additional refinement of the algorithm rules is needed to decrease the number of procedures that are flagged for review. This will decrease the time the IP spends on chart review while not missing any infected cases. Abstract In response to an increasing surveillance burden, an electronic algorithm was developed in 2009 to identify surgical site infection (SSI) candidates. The algorithm rules look for readmissions after a qualifying procedure in addition to cultures, antibiotic starts and ICD-9 infection codes. The SSI candidates are sent to an Infection Preventionist’s work list for review. The objective of this study was to examine the algorithm’s accuracy as a surveillance method for colon SSIs. Background Every colon procedure (identified by ICD-9 code) performed between 10/1/ /31/2012 at 10 BJC Healthcare system adult hospitals were included. The electronic medical records were screened by a single clinical abstractor. Based on the abstracted information a single Infection Preventionist reviewed all procedures identified as potentially infected to determine infection status using 2012 National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Results These results confirm that the algorithm is highly effective in rejecting true negatives for further evaluation. It is also highly effective in capturing true positives within the subset identified for infection investigation. Additional refinement of the algorithm rules is needed to decrease the number of procedures that are flagged for review. This will decrease the time the Infection Preventionist spends on chart review while not missing any infected cases. Conclusions ABSTRACT # MethodsResults 417 colon procedures were identified. The electronic algorithm triggered at least one rule for 115 (28%) procedures; 17 (15% yield) infected cases were confirmed by review. There was one infected case identified in the 302 procedures that did not trigger any rules. The hospital infection Preventionist would therefore not have been alerted to this SSI candidate. Algorithm sensitivity was 94.5% and specificity was 100%. The positive predictive value was 100% and the negative predictive value was 99.75%. 417 procedures identified 115 triggered algorithm 17 confirmed cases 302 did not trigger algorithm 1 confirmed case (not identified by trigger) Infection Preventionist InfectionNo InfectionTotal Algorithm Infection170 No Infection Total TestDefinitionCalculation & Result SensitivityThe probability that the algorithm will include procedures that indicate infection among those with infections 17/(17+1) = 94.45% SpecificityThe fraction of those without infection who were not triggered by the algorithm 399/(399+0) = 100% Positive Predictive Value (PPV) The probability that an SSI was identified by the algorithm17/17 = 100% Negative Predictive Value (NPV) The probability that a non-infected case was not identified as an SSI candidate by the algorithm 399/(399+1) = 99.75% Nothing to Disclose