Geriatric Patient Safety Indicators Based on Linked Administrative Health Data to Assess Anticoagulant-Related Thromboembolic and Hemorrhagic Adverse Events in Older Inpatients: A Study Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frail older people with multiple interacting conditions, polypharmacy, and complex care needs are particularly exposed to health care-related adverse events. Among these, anticoagulant-related thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events are particularly frequent and serious in older inpatients. The growing use of anticoagulants in this population and their substantial risk of toxicity and inefficacy have therefore become an important patient safety and public health concern worldwide. Anticoagulant-related adverse events and the quality of anticoagulation management should thus be routinely assessed to improve patient safety in vulnerable older inpatients. OBJECTIVE: This project aims to develop and validate a set of outcome and process indicators based on linked administrative health data (ie, insurance claims data linked to hospital discharge data) assessing older inpatient safety related to anticoagulation in both Switzerland and France, and enabling comparisons across time and among hospitals, health territories, and countries. Geriatric patient safety indicators (GPSIs) will assess anticoagulant-related adverse events. Geriatric quality indicators (GQIs) will evaluate the management of anticoagulants for the prevention and treatment of arterial or venous thromboembolism in older inpatients. METHODS: GPSIs will measure cumulative incidences of thromboembolic and bleeding adverse events based on hospital discharge data linked to insurance claims data. Using linked administrative health data will improve GPSI risk adjustment on patients' conditions that are present at admission and will capture in-hospital and postdischarge adverse events. GQIs will estimate the proportion of index hospital stays resulting in recommended anticoagulation at discharge and up to various time frames based on the same electronic health data. The GPSI and GQI development and validation process will comprise 6 stages: (1) selection and specification of candidate indicators, (2) definition of administrative data-based algorithms, (3) empirical measurement of indicators using linked administrative health data, (4) validation of indicators, (5) analyses of geographic and temporal variations for reliable and valid indicators, and (6) data visualization. RESULTS: Study populations will consist of 166,670 Swiss and 5,902,037 French residents aged 65 years and older admitted to an acute care hospital at least once during the 2012-2014 period and insured for at least 1 year before admission and 1 year after discharge. We will extract Swiss data from the Helsana Group data warehouse and French data from the national health insurance information system (SNIIR-AM). The study has been approved by Swiss and French ethics committees and regulatory organizations for data protection. CONCLUSIONS: Validated GPSIs and GQIs should help support and drive quality and safety improvement in older inpatients, inform health care stakeholders, and enable international comparisons. We discuss several limitations relating to the representativeness of study populations, accuracy of administrative health data, methods used for GPSI criterion validity assessment, and potential confounding bias in comparisons based on GQIs, and we address these limitations to strengthen study feasibility and validity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".