Using hospital discharge data for injury research or surveillance? An observational study illustrating the impact of administrative change. Issue 6 (9th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Davie, Gabrielle; Barson, Dave; Simpson, Jean C; Lilley, Rebbecca; Gulliver, Pauline; Cryer, Colin
• Is Part Of: Injury prevention. Volume 25:Issue 6(2019)
• Page Start: 540
• Page End: 545
• Publication Date: 2019-05-09
• Subjects: injury incidence -- trends -- hospital discharge data -- bias; Children's accidents -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043201
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1353-8047

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Hospital discharge data provide an important basis for determining priorities for injury prevention and monitoring trends in incidence. This study aims to illustrate the impact of a recent change in administrative practice on estimates of hospitalised injury incidence and to investigate the extent to which different case selection affects trends in injury incidence rates. Methods: New Zealand (NZ) hospital discharges (2000–2014) with a primary diagnosis of injury were identified. Additional case selection criteria included first admissions only, and for serious injury, a high threat-to-life estimate. Comparisons were made, over time and by District Health Board, between hospitalised injury incidence estimates that included, or not, short-stay emergency department (SSED) discharges. Results: Of the 1 229 772 injury hospital discharges, 365 114 were SSED; 16% of the annual total in 2000, 38% in 2014. Identification of readmissions prior to the exclusion of SSED discharges resulted in 30 724 cases being erroneously removed. Age-standardised rates of hospitalised injury over the 15-year period increased by, on average, 2.7% per year when SSED discharges were included; there was minimal secular change (−0.2%) when SSEDs were excluded. For serious hospitalised injury, the annual increase was 2.3% when SSED was included compared with 1.1% when SSEDs were excluded. Conclusion: Spurious trends in hospitalised injury incidence can result when administrative practices are not appropriately accounted for. Exclusion of SSED discharges before the identification of readmissions and the use of a severity threshold are recommended to minimise the reporting bias in NZ hospitalised injury incidence estimates.