IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0070825.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of Physician Billing Claims to Identify Deceased Organ Donors in Large Healthcare Databases

Author

Listed:
  • Alvin Ho-ting Li
  • S Joseph Kim
  • Jagadish Rangrej
  • Damon C Scales
  • Salimah Shariff
  • Donald A Redelmeier
  • Greg Knoll
  • Ann Young
  • Amit X Garg

Abstract

Objective: We evaluated the validity of physician billing claims to identify deceased organ donors in large provincial healthcare databases. Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective validation study of all deceased donors in Ontario, Canada from 2006 to 2011 (n = 988). We included all registered deaths during the same period (n = 458,074). Our main outcome measures included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of various algorithms consisting of physician billing claims to identify deceased organ donors and organ-specific donors compared to a reference standard of medical chart abstraction. Results: The best performing algorithm consisted of any one of 10 different physician billing claims. This algorithm had a sensitivity of 75.4% (95% CI: 72.6% to 78.0%) and a positive predictive value of 77.4% (95% CI: 74.7% to 80.0%) for the identification of deceased organ donors. As expected, specificity and negative predictive value were near 100%. The number of organ donors identified by the algorithm each year was similar to the expected value, and this included the pre-validation period (1991 to 2005). Algorithms to identify organ–specific donors performed poorly (e.g. sensitivity ranged from 0% for small intestine to 67% for heart; positive predictive values ranged from 0% for small intestine to 37% for heart). Interpretation: Primary data abstraction to identify deceased organ donors should be used whenever possible, particularly for the detection of organ-specific donations. The limitations of physician billing claims should be considered whenever they are used.

Suggested Citation

  • Alvin Ho-ting Li & S Joseph Kim & Jagadish Rangrej & Damon C Scales & Salimah Shariff & Donald A Redelmeier & Greg Knoll & Ann Young & Amit X Garg, 2013. "Validity of Physician Billing Claims to Identify Deceased Organ Donors in Large Healthcare Databases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070825
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070825
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070825
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0070825&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0070825?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nobuhiro Ooba & Soko Setoguchi & Takashi Ando & Tsugumichi Sato & Takuhiro Yamaguchi & Mayumi Mochizuki & Kiyoshi Kubota, 2013. "Claims-Based Definition of Death in Japanese Claims Database: Validity and Implications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aziz Jamal & Akira Babazono & Yunfei Li & Takako Fujita & Shinichiro Yoshida & Sung A Kim, 2021. "Elucidating variations in outcomes among older end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Takahashi, Yoshimitsu & Ishizaki, Tatsuro & Nakayama, Takeo & Kawachi, Ichiro, 2016. "Social network analysis of duplicative prescriptions: One-month analysis of medical facilities in Japan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 334-341.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0070825. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.