Skip to main content

Databases for assessing the outcomes of the treatment of patients with congenital and paediatric cardiac disease – a comparison of administrative and clinical data

  • Karl F. Welke (a1), Tara Karamlou (a2) and Brian S. Diggs (a2)

The introduction of the reporting of medical and surgical outcomes to the public and the potential implementation of initiatives involving pay-for-performance have invigorated debates about the relative benefits of administrative and clinical databases for comparing rates of mortality at the level of the hospital and surgeon. While general agreement exists that public performance report cards must use the highest quality data available, debate continues regarding whether administrative or clinical data should be utilized for this purpose. Clinical databases may contain information more relevant to risk-adjustment, but the currently available clinical databases are voluntary and suffer from validity concerns. Administrative data, however, suffer from inaccuracies of coding and a lack of potentially informative covariates. Particularly problematic to congenital heart surgery is the non-uniform application of coding algorithms to define complex reconstructive procedures for which there is no unique code assignment. The purposes of this manuscript are; therefore, to discuss the relative advantages and limitations of both clinical and administrative data, and to provide a brief introduction to currently available databases germane to the study of congenital cardiac disease.

Corresponding author
Correspondence to: Karl F. Welke, MD, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery L353, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon 97239-3098, United States of America. Tel: (503) 418-5443; Fax: (503) 418-1385; E-mail:
Hide All
1.HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 1988–2006. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Accessed June 16, 2008.
2.HCUP Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Accessed June 16, 2008.
3.Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Jollis JG, Peterson ED. Using medicare claims data to assess provider quality for CABG surgery. Does it work well enough? Health Serv Res 1997; 31: 659678.
4.Parker JP, Li Z, Darnberg CL, Danielsen B, Carlisle D. Administrative versus clinical data for coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards: the view from California. Med Care 2006; 44: 687695.
5.Glance LG, Dick AW, Osler TM, Mukamel DB. Does date stamping ICD-CM codes increase the value of clinical information in administrative data? Heath Serv Res 2006; 41: 14131437.
6.DeLong ER, Peterson ED, DeLong DM, Muhlbaier LH, Hackett S, Mark DB. Comparing risk-adjustment methods for provider profiling. Stat Med 1997; 16: 26452664.
7.Shahian DM, Silverstein T, Lovett AF, Wolf RE, Normand SLT. Comparison of clinical and administrative data sources for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards. Circulation 2007; 115: 15181527.
8.Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 666674.
9.Mack MJ, Herbert M, Prince S, Dewey TM, Magee MJ, Edgerton JR. Does reporting of coronary artery bypass grafting from administrative databases accurately reflect actual clinical outcomes? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129: 13091317.
10.Cronk CE, Malloy ME, Pelech AN, et al. Completeness of state administrative databases for surveillance of congenital heart disease. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Tetratol 2003; 67: 597603.
11.Frohnert BK, Lussky RC, Alms MA. Validity of hospital discharge data for identifying infants with cardiac defects. J Perinatol 2005; 25: 727742.
12.Finlayson EVA, Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Lucas FL, Wennberg DE. Adjusting surgical mortality rates for patient comorbidities: more harm than good? Surgery 2002; 132: 787794.
13.Romano PS. Asking too much of administrative data? J Am Coll Surg 2003; 196: 337338.
14.Williams WG. Surgical outcomes in congenital heart disease: expectations and realities. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 27: 937944.
15.Williams WG, McCrindle BW. Practical experience with databases for congenital heart disease: a registry versus an academic database. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2002; 5: 132142.
16.Gallivan S, Stark J, Pagel C, Williams G, Williams WG. Dead reckoning: can we trust estimates of mortality rates in clinical databases? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 33: 334340.
17.Jacobs JP, Mavroudis C, Jacobs ML, et al. What is operative mortality? Defining death in a surgical registry database: A report from the STS Congenital Database Task Force and the Joint EACTS-STS Congenital Database Committee. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 19371941.
18.Ashburn DA, McCrindle BW, Tchervenkov CI, et al. Outcomes after the Norwood operation in neonates with critical aortic stenosis or aortic valve atresia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 125: 10701082.
19.Welke KF, Peterson ED, Vaughn-Sarrazin MS, et al. Comparison of cardiac surgery volumes and mortality rates between the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Medicare databases from 1993 through 2001. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 84: 15381546.
20.Ugolini C, Nobilio L. Risk adjustment for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: an administrative approach versus EuroSCORE. Int J for Qual in Health Care 2004; 16: 157164.
21.Moller JH, Powell CB, Joransen JA, Borbas C. The pediatric cardiac care consortium – revisited. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1994; 20: 661668.
22.Welke KF, Shen I, Ungerleider RM. Current assessment of mortality rates in congenital cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 164171.
23.Jenkins KJ, Gauvreau K, Newburger JW, Spray TL, Moller JH, Iezzoni LI. Consensus-based method for risk adjustment for surgery for congenital heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 123: 110118.
24. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database 2008 Spring Harvest Congenital Report Executive Summary – All Patients. Available at Accessed June 16, 2008.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cardiology in the Young
  • ISSN: 1047-9511
  • EISSN: 1467-1107
  • URL: /core/journals/cardiology-in-the-young
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 104 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.