Skip Navigation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
Archive print banner
National Healthcare Disparities Report, 2004

This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.

Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.

Methods Applying AHRQ Quality Indicators to Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Data for the Second National Healthcare Disparities Report

By Rosanna Coffey, Ph.D., Marguerite Barrett, M.S., Bob Houchens, Ph.D., Ernest Moy, M.D., M.P.H., Roxanne Andrews, Ph.D., Ed Kelley, Ph.D., Denise Remus, Ph.D., R.N.

August 10, 2004

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Quality Indicators (QIs) were applied to the HCUP hospital discharge data for several measures in this report. The AHRQ QIs, originally developed by AHRQ staff (and termed the HCUP QIs), recently have been revised and improved by the University of California San Francisco and Stanford University (UCSF-Stanford) under contract with AHRQ. The QIs are measures of quality associated with processes of care that occurred in an outpatient or an inpatient setting. The QIs rely solely on hospital inpatient administrative data and, for this reason, are screens for examining quality that may indicate the need for more in-depth studies. The AHRQ QIs include three sets of measures:

  • Prevention Quality Indicators (PQIs) 'or ambulatory care sensitive conditions' identify hospital admissions that evidence suggests could have been avoided, at least in part, through high-quality outpatient care (AHRQ, 2001; Davies et al., 2001).
  • Inpatient Quality Indicators (IQIs) reflect quality of care inside hospitals and include measures of utilization of procedures for which there are questions of overuse, underuse, or misuse (AHRQ, 2002; Davies et al., 2001).
  • Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) reflect quality of care inside hospitals, by focusing on surgical complications and other iatrogenic events (AHRQ, 2003; McDonald et al., 2002).

The QI measures selected for this report are described in Table 1 at the end of this methods section.

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) is a family of healthcare databases and related software tools and products developed through a Federal-State-Industry partnership and sponsored by AHRQ. HCUP databases bring together the data collection efforts of State data organizations, hospital associations, private data organizations, and the Federal government to create a national information resource of discharge-level health care data. HCUP includes the largest collection of longitudinal hospital care data in the United States, with all-payer, encounter-level information beginning in 1988. These databases enable research on a broad range of health policy issues, including cost and quality of health services, medical practice patterns, access to health care programs, and outcomes of treatments at the national, State and local market levels.

The 2001 HCUP Statewide Inpatient Databases (SID), a census of hospitals (with all of their discharges), from 22 participating States were used to create a disparities analysis file designed to provide national estimates on disparities for this report. A sample of hospitals from the following States were included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, and Wisconsin. For the list of the HCUP data sources, go to Table 2 at the end of this methods section.

To apply the AHRQ Quality Indicators to HCUP hospital discharge data, several steps were taken: 1) QI software review and modification, 2) acquisition of population-based data, 3) general preparation of HCUP data, 4) special methods for race/ethnicity reporting, and 4) identification of statistical methods. These steps, described briefly below, are presented in detail in the Technical Specifications for HCUP Measures in the Second National Healthcare Quality Report and the National Healthcare Disparities Report (Barrett, Houchens, Coffey, et al., 2004), available from AHRQ on request.

Return to Contents

1. QI Software Review and Modification

For this report, we started with the following QI software versions: PQI Version 2.1 (revision 2, January 2003), IQI Version 2.1 (revision 2, September 2003), and PSI Version 2.1 (revision 1, May 2003). Because these software modules did not include all of the reporting categories needed for the NHDR, some changes to the QI calculations were necessary. (For details, see Barrett, Houchens, Coffey, et al., 2004). We also added two indicators: immunization-preventable pneumococcal pneumonia and immunization-preventable influenza.

Return to Contents

2. Acquisition of Population-Based Data

Generally, a QI as a measure of an event that occurs in a hospital requires a numerator count of the event of interest and a denominator count of the population (within the hospital or within the geographic area) to which the event relates. These denominator counts had to be located for all reporting categories and for all adjustment categories listed in the HCUP-based tables. Age-gender adjustments were made by 18 five-year increments of age by male-female gender. Thus, to develop the QI rates, we needed national-level data for the QI denominators by each reporting category by the 36 classes for age-gender adjustments. The HCUP data were used for discharge denominator counts for QIs that related to providers. Population ZIP-Code-level counts by age, gender, race, and ethnicity from Claritas were used for denominator counts for QIs that related to geographic areas. Claritas uses intra-census methods to estimate ZIP-Code-level statistics (Claritas, Inc., 2001). ZIP-Code-level counts were necessary for statistics by median income and location of the patient's ZIP Code.

Return to Contents

3. Special Methods for Race/Ethnicity Reporting:

Race and ethnicity measures can be problematic in hospital discharge databases. Many hospitals do not code race and ethnicity completely. Because race/ethnicity is a pivotal measure for the NHDR, we explored the reporting of the race/ethnicity data in the 33 States that participate in 2001 HCUP SID. Eight States did not provide information on patient race to HCUP. Two States did not report Hispanic ethnicity, and one State only reports patient race as white, non-white, and Hispanic. The remaining twenty-two States were used for the creation of the disparities analysis file. The following table demonstrates the representation by region of the 22 States.

Region/ Number of States used for the disparities analysis file Number of States in the region Percent of States in the region included in the disparities analysis file
Northeast 7 9 78%
Midwest 4 12 33%
South 7 16 44%
West 4 13 31%
Total 22 50 44%

The table below compares aggregated totals of various measures for the 22 States as a percent of the national measure. In 2001, the 22 States accounted for 65 percent of U.S. hospital discharges (based on the American Hospital Association's Annual Survey). They accounted for about 60 percent of various subgroups of the nation (based on 2001 Claritas data), with the exception of Asian/Pacific Islanders; the 22 States included 76 percent of the Asian/Pacific Islander population.

Measure Total of 22 HCUP States with race/ethnicity
as a percent of national total
Hospital discharges 65%
   
Total resident population 56%*
   
Population by race/ethnicity:  
    White 57%*
    African American 60%*
    Asian/Pacific Islander 76%*
    Hispanic 65%*
   
Population by age:  
    Population under age 18 57%*
    Population age 18-64 59%*
    Population over age 64 60%*
   
Population with income under the poverty level 68%**

* Calculated using 2001 Claritas and 1990 Census race definitions.
** Calculated using Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured estimates based on pooled March 2002 and 2003 Current Population Surveys.

Data on Hispanics is collected differently among the States and also can differ from the Census methodology of collecting information on race (White, African American, Asian, American Native) separately from ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic). States often collect Hispanic ethnicity as one of several categories that include race. Clerks use these combined race/ethnicity categories to classify patients on admission to the hospital, often by observing rather than asking the patient. The HCUP databases maintain the combined categorization of race and ethnicity. When a State and its hospitals collect Hispanic ethnicity separately from race, HCUP processing for a uniform database, uses Hispanic ethnicity to override any other race category.

Return to Contents

4. Preparation of HCUP Data and Development of the Disparities Analysis File

Several HCUP data issues had to be resolved before applying the QI algorithms. First, we selected community hospitals only from the 22 States and eliminated rehabilitation hospitals in the 2001 SID because the completeness of reporting for rehabilitation hospitals was inconsistent across States. Second, community hospitals from these 22 States were sampled to approximate a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. community hospitals. The sampling strata were defined based on five hospital characteristics: geographic region, hospital control (i.e., public, private not-for-profit, and proprietary), urbanized location, teaching status, and bed size. Hospitals were excluded from the sampling frame if the coding of patient race was suspect (i.e., more than 30% of the discharges in the hospital had the race reported as "other", more than 50% of the discharges in the hospital had no information on the race of the patient, all of the discharges in the hospital had race coded as white, other, or missing, or 100% of the discharges in the hospital had race coded as white and the hospital had more than 50 beds). Once the 20-percent sample was drawn, discharge-level weights were developed to produce national-level estimates when applied to the disparities analysis file. The sampling and weighting strategy used for the disparities analysis file is similar to the method used to create the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), except that the disparities analysis file samples from 22 of the 33 States included in the 2001 NIS. The final disparities analysis file included almost 8 million hospital discharges from 976 hospitals. Third, for missing age, gender, ZIP Code, race/ethnicity, and payer data that occurred on a small proportion of discharge records, we used a "hot deck" imputation method (which draws donors from strata of similar hospitals and patients) to assign values while preserving the variance within the data. Fourth, we assigned median household income and patient location based on ZIP Code data obtained from Claritas linked to patient ZIP Code in the HCUP databases.

5. Statistical Methods

Statistical issues involved age-gender adjustment for all QIs, severity/comorbidity adjustment for the discharge-based IQIs and PSIs, and derivation of standard errors and appropriate hypothesis tests. For the PQIs and area-based IQIs and PSIs, age-gender adjustments were made for age and gender differences across other population subgroups and were based on methods of direct standardization (Fleiss, 1973). Standard errors calculations for the disparities analysis file were based on the HCUP report entitled "Calculating Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) Variances" (HCUP, 2002). There is no sampling error associated with Claritas population counts. The appropriate statistics were obtained through the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) procedure called PROC SURVEYMEANS. For the discharge-based PSIs, adjustments were made for age, gender, age-gender interaction, DRG cluster, and comorbidity, using a regression-based standardization developed by UCSF-Stanford. For the discharge-based IQIs, adjustments were made for age, gender, age-gender interaction, and All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRGs) risk of mortality or severity score using a regression-based standardization developed by UCSF-Stanford. The threshold selected for reporting estimates in this report is at least 70 unweighted cases in the denominator. A sample of at least 70 discharges was required to assure a relative error routinely used in Federal sample surveys of less than 30 percent. Statistical calculations are explained in Appendix A to this report and in Barrett, Houchens, and Coffey et al. (2004).

Return to Contents

Caveats

Some caution should be used in interpreting the AHRQ QI statistics presented in this report. The caveats relate to inter-State differences in data collection:

Return to Contents

Data Collection Differences among States

Organizations that collect statewide data, generally collect data using the Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set (UHDDS) and the Uniform Bill (UB-92) formats. However, not every statewide data organization collects all data elements nor codes them the same way. For this report, uneven availability of a few data elements underlie some estimates, as noted next.

Data Elements Needed in Some QIs: Three data elements not available in every State that are required for certain QIs are: "secondary procedure day," admission type" (elective, urgent, and emergency), and "admission source" (e.g., transfer from another institution, emergency room, etc). These data elements are used to exclude specific cases from some QI measures. These problems were overcome by 1) dropping "secondary procedure day" from two QIs for all States and 2) using additional data elements to work around the "admission type" problem in two States. For "admission source" for one State, admission source could not be identified, but at most only 7 percent of discharges in that State (and 0.16% of discharges for the sampled hospitals from the 22 States) were involved for any QI.

Number of Clinical Fields: Another data collection issue relates to the number of fields that statewide data organizations permit for reporting patients' diagnoses and procedures during the hospitalization and whether they specifically require coding of external-cause of injury (E codes). The SID for different States contain as few as 6 or as many as 30 fields for reporting diagnoses and procedures, as shown in Table 3 at the end of this methods section. The more fields used the more quality-related events that can be captured in the statewide databases. However, even for States with 30 diagnosis fields available in the year 2000, 95 percent of their discharge records captured all of patients' diagnoses in 10 to 13 data elements. For States with 30 procedure fields available, 95 percent of records captured all of patients' procedures in 5 fields. Thus, limited numbers of fields available for reporting diagnoses and procedures are unlikely to have much effect on results, because all statewide data organizations participating in HCUP allow at least 9 diagnoses and 6 procedures. We decided not to truncate artificially the diagnosis and procedure fields reported, so that the full richness of the databases would be used. Another issue relates to external cause of injury reporting. Eight of the 26 Patient Safety Indicators use external cause of injury (E code) data to help identify complications of care or to exclude cases (e.g., poisonings, self-inflicted injury, trauma) from numerators and denominators, as shown in Table 4 at the end of this methods section. Although E codes in the AHRQ PSI software have been augmented wherever possible with the related non-E codes in the ICD-9-CM system, go to Table 4 for specific details, E codes are still included in some AHRQ PSI definitions, and uneven capture of these data has the potential (although now lessened) of affecting some PSI rates and should be kept in mind when judging the level of these events.

Race/ethnicity coding: Even excluding hospitals with a large proportion of race/ethnicity coding that was missing, there may still remain differences in racial and ethnicity coding among States that affect estimates. For example, some States include Hispanic ethnicity as a category among racial categories, some ask about Hispanic ethnicity separately from race. At the hospital-level, policies vary on methods for collecting such data. Some hospitals ask the patient to identify their race and ethnicity, some determine it from observation. The effect of these and other unmeasured differences in coding of race and ethnicity across the States and hospitals cannot be assessed.

 

 

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.

 

AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care