Matters arising

Health services administration
Volume 190 - Issue 9

Reforming NSW Health: the importance of using credible data

Authors:  Sue M Evans, Peter A Cameron and John J McNeil

Med J Aust 2009; 190 (9): 515. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02537.x
Published online: 4 May 2009
Download PDF (59 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: The Garling report highlights gaps in the New South Wales health system and establishes a framework for change.1 We support Garling’s view that there is a need for greater measurement of the health system to assess quality of care, and we believe that clinical networks have an important role to play in establishing, interpreting and actioning quality indicator data.2 But the statement that “There is already a great reservoir of information available within NSW Health from which data are available to measure the quality of patient care ...”1 is unhelpful in moving this work forward.

While it is true that vast amounts of data are collected and classified using the ICD (International classification of diseases) coding system, in their current state these data have limited ability to accurately measure quality and drive change at a clinical level, for a number of reasons. First, data are not recorded in the medical record in a planned and systematic manner using agreed definitions, making findings susceptible to reporting bias. Second, the coding system fails to accurately account for differences in patient casemix, which is needed to enable appropriate risk adjustment to occur. This was recently highlighted in the United Kingdom when administrative data were compared with registry data to assess outcomes after cardiac surgery: admitted episode data underestimated the number of patients receiving treatment by approximately 20%, and captured only between 27% and 78% of deaths at 30 days in nine of the 11 centres undertaking cardiac surgery.3

Others have gone down the path of investing huge sums of money to measure quality using administrative data and reward high performers, with moderate success at best.4 To emulate this approach in the absence of further investigation would be premature.

To measure quality of care we need to:

It is only through assuring clinicians that the data used to measure quality of care are reliable and clinically relevant that they will have any positive impact on changing practice.

Authors

  • Sue M Evans1
  • Peter A Cameron2
  • John J McNeil3
  • 1. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.

Correspondence: sue.evans@med.monash.edu.au

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

View more