title: How to evaluate and improve the quality and credibility of an outcomes database: validation and feedback study on the UK Cardiac Surgery Experience.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To assess the quality and completeness of a database of clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery and to determine whether a process of validation, monitoring, and feedback could improve the quality of the database.
  
  
  METHODS
  Stratified sampling of retrospective data followed by prospective re-sampling of database after intervention of monitoring, validation, and feedback.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ten tertiary care cardiac surgery centres in the United Kingdom.
  
  
  METHODS
  Validation of data derived from a stratified sample of case notes (recording of deaths cross checked with mortuary records), monitoring of completeness and accuracy of data entry, feedback to local data managers and lead surgeons.
  
  
  METHODS
  Average percentage missing data, average kappa coefficient, and reliability score by centre for 17 variables required for assignment of risk scores. Actual minus risk adjusted mortality in each centre.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The database was incomplete, with a mean (SE) of 24.96% (0.09%) of essential data elements missing, whereas only 1.18% (0.06%) were missing in the patient records (P<0.0001). Intervention was associated with (a) significantly less missing data (9.33% (0.08%) P<0.0001); (b) marginal improvement in reliability of data and mean (SE) overall centre reliability score (0.53 (0.15) v 0.44 (0.17)); and (c) improved accuracy of assigned Parsonnet risk scores (kappa 0.84 v 0.70). Mortality scores (actual minus risk adjusted mortality) for all participating centres fell within two standard deviations of the mean score.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A short period of independent validation, monitoring, and feedback improved the quality of an outcomes database and improved the process of risk adjustment, but with substantial room for further improvement. Wider application of this approach should increase the credibility of similar databases before their public release.
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, Royal Free and University College Medical School, University College London, London WC1E 6JJ. l.fine@ucl.ac.uk
authors.forename: Leon G
authors.initials: LG
authors.lastname: Fine
authors.forename: Bruce E
authors.initials: BE
authors.lastname: Keogh
authors.forename: Shan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Cretin
authors.forename: Maria
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Orlando
authors.forename: Mairi M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Gould
mesh_terms: D006348:Cardiac Surgical Procedures / Q000592:standards*; D016208:Databases, Factual / Q000592:standards*; D005246:Feedback; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D015397:Program Evaluation; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012015:Reference Standards; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D006113:United Kingdom