Background: The availability of two contemporary sources of information about coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) interventions, allowed 1) to verify the feasibility of performing outcome evaluation studies using administrative data sources, and 2) to compare hospital performance obtainable using the CABG Project clinical database with hospital performance derived from the use of current administrative data.
Methods: Interventions recorded in the CABG Project were linked to the hospital discharge record (HDR) administrative database. Only the linked records were considered for subsequent analyses (46% of the total CABG Project). A new selected population "clinical card-HDR" was then defined. Two independent risk-adjustment models were applied, each of them using information derived from one of the two different sources. Then, HDR information was supplemented with some patient preoperative conditions from the CABG clinical database. The two models were compared in terms of their adaptability to data. Hospital performances identified by the two different models and significantly different from the mean was compared.
Results: In only 4 of the 13 hospitals considered for analysis, the results obtained using the HDR model did not completely overlap with those obtained by the CABG model. When comparing statistical parameters of the HDR model and the HDR model + patient preoperative conditions, the latter showed the best adaptability to data.
Conclusions: In this "clinical card-HDR" population, hospital performance assessment obtained using information from the clinical database is similar to that derived from the use of current administrative data. However, when risk-adjustment models built on administrative databases are supplemented with a few clinical variables, their statistical parameters improve and hospital performance assessment becomes more accurate.