Cited by 134Medical Coding and Health InformationHealthcare Quality and ManagementElectronic Health Records Systems

Quality of data collected for severity of illness scores in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry

Arts, Daniëlle, de Keizer, Nicolette, Scheffer, Gert-Jan, de Jonge, Evert·2002·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective To analyse the quality of data used to measure severity of illness in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry, after implementation of quality improving procedures. Design Data were re-abstracted from the paper records of patients or the Patient Data Management System and compared to the data contained in the registry. The re-abstracted data were considered to be the gold standard. Setting ICUs of nine Dutch hospitals that had been collecting data for the NICE registry for at least 1 year. Measurement and results The mean percentages of inaccurate and incomplete data, per hospital, over all variables, were 6.1%+/-4.4 (SD) and 2.7%+/-4.4 (SD), respectively. The mean difference in severity of illness scores between registry data and re-abstracted data was 0.2 points for APACHE II and 0.4 points for SAPS II. The mean difference in predicted mortality according to APACHE II and SAPS II between registry data and re-abstracted data was 0.4% and 0.02%, respectively. Conclusions The current data quality of the NICE registry is good and justifies evaluative research. These positive results might be explained by the implementation of several quality assurance procedures in the NICE registry, such as training and automatic data checks. Electronic supplementary material to this paper can be obtained by using the Springer LINK server located at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-002-1272-z

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-002-1272-z

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arts, D., de Keizer, N., Scheffer, G.-J., & de Jonge, E.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Amphia Ziekenhuis (NL)
Corresponding author
Arts, Daniëlle
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2002-04-13
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
656-659
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W2066430861
Cited by
134
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
data quality, disease severity index, intensive care unit, APACHE II score, SAPS II, mortality prediction, quality assurance, electronic data management, Dutch hospitals
MeSH terms
Documentation, Health Services Research, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Netherlands, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Registries, Severity of Illness Index, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Statistics, Nonparametric, APACHE

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review