Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33207159›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2020

Consolidating Emergency Department-specific Data to Enable Linkage with Large Administrative Datasets.

Krislyn M Boggs, Maranatha M Teferi, Janice A Espinola, Ashley F Sullivan, Kohei Hasegawa, Kori S Zachrison, Margaret E Samuels-Kalow, Carlos A Camargo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparing definitions of a pediatric emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Krislyn M BoggsMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Maranatha M TeferiMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Janice A EspinolaMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ashley F SullivanMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kohei HasegawaMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kori S ZachrisonMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Margaret E Samuels-KalowMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Carlos A CamargoMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Identifying novel system-level factors associated with the quality of acute stroke care deliveryK08HS024561 · AHRQ · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ZACHRISON, KORILYN SAUSER · 2016 to 2020
$784k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS024561
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe American Hospital Association (AHA) has hospital-level data, while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has patient-level data. Merging these with other distinct databases would permit analyses of hospital-based specialties, units, or departments, and patient outcomes. One distinct database is the National Emergency Department Inventory (NEDI), which contains information about all EDs in the United States. However, a challenge with merging these databases is that NEDI lists all US EDs individually, while the AHA and CMS group some EDs by hospital network. Consolidating data for this merge may be preferential to excluding grouped EDs. Our objectives were to consolidate ED data to enable linkage with administrative datasets and to determine the effect of excluding grouped EDs on ED-level summary results.

methodsUsing the 2014 NEDI-USA database, we surveyed all New England EDs. We individually matched NEDI EDs with corresponding EDs in the AHA and CMS. A "group match" was assigned when more than one NEDI ED was matched to a single AHA or CMS facility identification number. Within each group, we consolidated individual ED data to create a single observation based on sums or weighted averages of responses as appropriate.

resultsOf the 195 EDs in New England, 169 (87%) completed the NEDI survey. Among these, 130 (77%) EDs were individually listed in AHA and CMS, while 39 were part of groups consisting of 2-3 EDs but represented by one facility ID. Compared to the individually listed EDs, the 39 EDs included in a "group match" had a larger number of annual visits and beds, were more likely to be freestanding, and were less likely to be rural (all P<0.05). Two grouped EDs were excluded because the listed ED did not respond to the NEDI survey; the remaining 37 EDs were consolidated into 19 observations. Thus, the consolidated dataset contained 149 observations representing 171 EDs; this consolidated dataset yielded summary results that were similar to those of the 169 responding EDs.

conclusionExcluding grouped EDs would have resulted in a non-representative dataset. The original vs consolidated NEDI datasets yielded similar results and enabled linkage with large administrative datasets. This approach presents a novel opportunity to use characteristics of hospital-based specialties, units, and departments in studies of patient-level outcomes, to advance health services research.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualEmergency Service, HospitalHealth Information ManagementHospitals, RuralAgedHumansMaleMedical InformaticsMedicareNew EnglandSemantic WebUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33207159
PMCPMC7673880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.