Is hospital discharge administrative data an appropriate source of information for cancer registries purposes? Some insights from four Spanish registries

Background. The use of hospital discharge administrative data (HDAD) has been recommended for automating, improving, even substituting, population-based cancer registries. The frequency of false positive and false negative cases recommends local validation. Methods. The aim of this study was to detect newly diagnosed, false positive and false negative cases of cancer from hospital discharge claims, using four Spanish population-based cancer registries as the gold standard. Prostate cancer was used as a case study. Results. A total of 2286 incident cases of prostate cancer registered in 2000 were used for validation. In the most sensitive algorithm (that using five diagnostic codes), estimates for Sensitivity ranged from 14.5% (CI95% 10.3-19.6) to 45.7% (CI95% 41.4-50.1). In the most predictive algorithm (that using five diagnostic and five surgical codes) Positive Predictive Value estimates ranged from 55.9% (CI95% 42.4-68.8) to 74.3% (CI95% 67.0-80.6). The most frequent reason for false positive cases was the number of prevalent cases inadequately considered as newly diagnosed cancers, ranging from 61.1% to 82.3% of false positive cases. The most frequent reason for false negative cases was related to the number of cases not attended in hospital settings. In this case, figures ranged from 34.4% to 69.7% of false negative cases, in the most predictive algorithm. Conclusions. HDAD might be a helpful tool for cancer registries to reach their goals. The findings suggest that, for automating cancer registries, algorithms combining diagnoses and procedures are the best option. However, for cancer surveillance purposes, in those cancers like prostate cancer in which care is not only hospital-based, combining inpatient and outpatient information will be required.

Management of bleeding and coagulopathy following major trauma: an updated European guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient. When these recommendations are implemented patient outcomes may be improved. METHODS: The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document represents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007 and updated in 2010. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature. RESULTS: Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on the appropriate use of vasopressors and inotropic agents, and reflect an awareness of the growing number of patients in the population at large treated with antiplatelet agents and/or oral anticoagulants. The current guideline also includes recommendations and a discussion of thromboprophylactic strategies for all patients following traumatic injury. The most significant addition is a new section that discusses the need for every institution to develop, implement and adhere to an evidence-based clinical protocol to manage traumatically injured patients. The remaining recommendations have been re-evaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to trauma care and mechanisms with which to ensure that established protocols are consistently implemented will ensure a uniform and high standard of care across Europe and beyond.

A Clinical Decision Support using a Terminology Server to improve Patient Safety.

Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) are software applications that support clinicians in making healthcare decisions providing relevant information for individual patients about their specific conditions. The lack of integration between CDSS and Electronic Health Record (EHR) has been identified as a significant barrier to CDSS development and adoption. Andalusia Healthcare Public System (AHPS) provides an interoperable health information infrastructure based on a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) that eases CDSS implementation. This paper details the deployment of a CDSS jointly with the deployment of a Terminology Server (TS) within the AHPS infrastructure. It also explains a case study about the application of decision support to thromboembolism patients and its potential impact on improving patient safety. We will apply the inSPECt tool proposal to evaluate the appropriateness of alerts in this scenario.

Management of bleeding following major trauma: an updated European guideline.

INTRODUCTION Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient, which when implemented may improve patient outcomes. METHODS The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document presents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature. RESULTS Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on coagulation support and monitoring and the appropriate use of local haemostatic measures, tourniquets, calcium and desmopressin in the bleeding trauma patient. The remaining recommendations have been reevaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies. CONCLUSIONS This guideline provides an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of critically injured bleeding trauma patients.