Comparison of identifiable and non-identifiable data linkage: health technology assessment of MitraClip using registry, administrative and mortality datasets. Issue 1 (5th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Keltie, Kim; Cognigni, Paola; Gross, Sam; Urwin, Samuel; Burn, Julie; Cole, Helen; Berry, Lee; Patrick, Hannah; Sims, Andrew
• Is Part Of: BMJ health & care informatics. Volume 28:Issue 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-04-05
• Subjects: health care -- medical informatics -- patient care -- record systems; Medical informatics -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Information storage and retrieval systems -- Medical care -- Periodicals; Primary care (Medicine) -- Great Britain -- Data processing -- Periodicals; 362.10285
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100223
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2632-1009

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: The UK MitraClip registry was commissioned by National Health Service (NHS) England to assess real-world outcomes from percutaneous mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation using a new technology, MitraClip. This study aimed to determine longitudinal patient outcomes by linking to routine datasets: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Admitted Patient Care (APC) and Office of National Statistics. Methods: Two methods of linkage were compared, using identifiable (NHS number, date of birth, postcode, gender) and non-identifiable data (hospital trust, age in years, admission, discharge and operation dates, operation and diagnosis codes). Outcome measures included: matching success, patient demographics, all-cause mortality and subsequent cardiac intervention. Results: A total of 197 registry patients were eligible for matching with routine administrative data. Using identifiable linkage, a total of 187 patients (94.9%) were matched with the HES APC dataset. However, 21 matched individuals (11.2%) had inconsistencies across the datasets (eg, different gender) and were subsequently removed, leaving 166 (84.3%) for analysis. Using non-identifiable data linkage, a total of 170 patients (86.3%) were uniquely matched with the HES APC dataset. Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two methods of data linkage. The total number of deaths (all causes) identified from identifiable and non-identifiable linkage methods was 37 and 40, respectively, and the difference in subsequent cardiac interventions identified between the two methods was negligible. Conclusions: Patients from a bespoke clinical procedural registry were matched to routine administrative data using identifiable and non-identifiable methods with equivalent matching success rates, similar baseline characteristics and similar 2-year outcomes.