Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcQuilton, Z.K.*
dc.contributor.authorZatta, A.J.*
dc.contributor.authorAndrianopoulos, Nick*
dc.contributor.authorAoki, N.*
dc.contributor.authorStevenson, L.*
dc.contributor.authorBadami, K.G.*
dc.contributor.authorBird, R.*
dc.contributor.authorCole-Sinclair, M.F.*
dc.contributor.authorHurn, C.*
dc.contributor.authorCameron, P.A.*
dc.contributor.authorPhillips, L.E.*
dc.contributor.authorWood, E.M.*
dc.description.abstractAcknowledgments: given to participating institutions who assisted with data collection, including Ballarat Health Services. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of routinely collected data to determine the cause(s) of critical bleeding in patients who receive massive transfusion (MT). BACKGROUND: Routinely collected data are increasingly being used to describe and evaluate transfusion practice. MATERIALS/METHODS: Chart reviews were undertaken on 10 randomly selected MT patients at 48 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand to determine the cause(s) of critical bleeding. Diagnosis-related group (DRG) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were extracted separately and used to assign each patient a cause of critical bleeding. These were compared against chart review using percentage agreement and kappa statistics. RESULTS: A total of 427 MT patients were included with complete ICD and DRG data for 427 (100%) and 396 (93%), respectively. Good overall agreement was found between chart review and ICD codes (78·3%; κ = 0·74, 95% CI 0·70-0·79) and only fair overall agreement with DRG (51%; κ = 0·45, 95% CI 0·40-0·50). Both ICD and DRG were sensitive and accurate for classifying obstetric haemorrhage patients (98% sensitivity and κ > 0·94). However, compared with the ICD algorithm, DRGs were less sensitive and accurate in classifying bleeding as a result of gastrointestinal haemorrhage (74% vs 8%; κ = 0·75 vs 0·1), trauma (92% vs 62%; κ = 0·78 vs 0·67), cardiac (80% vs 57%; κ = 0·79 vs 0·60) and vascular surgery (64% vs 56%; κ = 0·69 vs 0·65). CONCLUSION: Algorithms using ICD codes can determine the cause of critical bleeding in patients requiring MT with good to excellent agreement with clinical history. DRG are less suitable to determine critical bleeding causes.en_US
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Gemma Siemensma ( on 2017-04-04T04:59:26Z No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceApproved for entry into archive by Gemma Siemensma ( on 2017-11-06T04:53:08Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2017-11-06T04:53:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2016en
dc.titleEvaluation of clinical coding data to determine causes of critical bleeding in patients receiving massive transfusion: a bi-national, multicentre, cross-sectional study.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.contributor.corpauthorAustralian New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry Steering Committeeen_US
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleTransfusion Medicine: Official Journal of the British Blood Transfusion Societyen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusADMINISTRATIVE DATAen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusBLOOD TRANSFUSIONen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCLINICAL CODINGen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusCRITICAL BLEEDINGen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusDIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPSen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusGASTROINTESTINAL HEMORRHAGEen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusMASSIVE TRANSFUSIONen_US
dc.subject.healththesaurusRED BLOOD CELL TRANSFUSIONen_US
Appears in Collections:Research Output

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.