Development of Data Quality Indicators for Improving Hospital International Classification of Diseases–Coded Health Data Quality Globally
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital inpatient data, coded using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), is widely used to monitor diseases, allocate resources and funding, and evaluate patient outcomes. As such, hospital data quality should be measured before use; however, currently, there is no standard and international approach to assess ICD-coded data quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop a standardized method for assessing hospital ICD-coded data quality that could be applied across countries: Data quality indicators (DQIs). RESEARCH DESIGN: To identify a set of candidate DQIs, we performed an environmental scan, reviewing gray and academic literature on data quality frameworks and existing methods to assess data quality. Indicators from the literature were then appraised and selected through a 3-round Delphi process. The first round involved face-to-face group and individual meetings for idea generation, while the second and third rounds were conducted remotely to collect online ratings. Final DQIs were selected based on the panelists' quantitative and qualitative feedback. SUBJECTS: Participants included international experts with expertise in administrative health data, data quality, and ICD coding. RESULTS: The resulting 24 DQIs encompass 5 dimensions of data quality: relevance, accuracy and reliability; comparability and coherence; timeliness; and Accessibility and clarity. These will help stakeholders (eg, World Health Organization) to assess hospital data quality using the same standard across countries and highlight areas in need of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This novel area of research will facilitate international comparisons of ICD-coded data quality and be valuable to future studies and initiatives aimed at improving hospital administrative data quality.
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 | 0.428 | 0.500 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".