Validating billing data for RBC transfusions: A brief report

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Administrative data are used often for research, but without validation of their accuracy. The validity of the billing for blood transfusion was assessed in one tertiary-care hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient discharge data were retrieved from a database containing demographics, diagnoses, and charges. There was random selection of 358 patients who were billed for RBC transfusion and 358 who were not, within a 2-month period. The blood bank's transfusion records were reviewed. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of transfused patients who were billed, and specificity as the proportion of nontransfused patients who were not billed. Patient characteristics were compared by using Wilcoxon's rank sum test and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Sixty-one transfused patients were not billed for the transfusion. No patient was billed without transfusion. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 83 percent (95% Cl, 79-87%) and 100 percent, respectively. Nine patients who were not issued RBCs were appropriately not billed for RBCs, although the billing record suggests they had a procedure involving transfusion. These patients were called true-negative. The patients not billed were older (58 years vs. 55 years; p = 0.046) and less likely to have commercial insurance (5% vs. 15%; p = 0.035) than billed patients. CONCLUSIONS: The billing for RBC transfusion in one large institution is reassuringly valid. The specificity is excellent, and the sensitivity is higher than that seen in other studies of coding validity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)530-533
Number of pages4
JournalTransfusion
Volume41
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Nonparametric Statistics
Blood Transfusion
Blood Banks
Patient Discharge
Tertiary Healthcare
Chi-Square Distribution
Insurance
Tertiary Care Centers
Patient Selection
Demography
Databases
Sensitivity and Specificity
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Immunology

Cite this

Validating billing data for RBC transfusions : A brief report. / Segal, Jodi; Ness, Paul Michael; Powe, Neil R.

In: Transfusion, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2001, p. 530-533.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1dadb166612f41828a374b6905e651f7,
title = "Validating billing data for RBC transfusions: A brief report",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Administrative data are used often for research, but without validation of their accuracy. The validity of the billing for blood transfusion was assessed in one tertiary-care hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient discharge data were retrieved from a database containing demographics, diagnoses, and charges. There was random selection of 358 patients who were billed for RBC transfusion and 358 who were not, within a 2-month period. The blood bank's transfusion records were reviewed. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of transfused patients who were billed, and specificity as the proportion of nontransfused patients who were not billed. Patient characteristics were compared by using Wilcoxon's rank sum test and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Sixty-one transfused patients were not billed for the transfusion. No patient was billed without transfusion. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 83 percent (95{\%} Cl, 79-87{\%}) and 100 percent, respectively. Nine patients who were not issued RBCs were appropriately not billed for RBCs, although the billing record suggests they had a procedure involving transfusion. These patients were called true-negative. The patients not billed were older (58 years vs. 55 years; p = 0.046) and less likely to have commercial insurance (5{\%} vs. 15{\%}; p = 0.035) than billed patients. CONCLUSIONS: The billing for RBC transfusion in one large institution is reassuringly valid. The specificity is excellent, and the sensitivity is higher than that seen in other studies of coding validity.",
author = "Jodi Segal and Ness, {Paul Michael} and Powe, {Neil R.}",
year = "2001",
doi = "10.1046/j.1537-2995.2001.41040530.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "530--533",
journal = "Transfusion",
issn = "0041-1132",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validating billing data for RBC transfusions

T2 - A brief report

AU - Segal, Jodi

AU - Ness, Paul Michael

AU - Powe, Neil R.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - BACKGROUND: Administrative data are used often for research, but without validation of their accuracy. The validity of the billing for blood transfusion was assessed in one tertiary-care hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient discharge data were retrieved from a database containing demographics, diagnoses, and charges. There was random selection of 358 patients who were billed for RBC transfusion and 358 who were not, within a 2-month period. The blood bank's transfusion records were reviewed. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of transfused patients who were billed, and specificity as the proportion of nontransfused patients who were not billed. Patient characteristics were compared by using Wilcoxon's rank sum test and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Sixty-one transfused patients were not billed for the transfusion. No patient was billed without transfusion. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 83 percent (95% Cl, 79-87%) and 100 percent, respectively. Nine patients who were not issued RBCs were appropriately not billed for RBCs, although the billing record suggests they had a procedure involving transfusion. These patients were called true-negative. The patients not billed were older (58 years vs. 55 years; p = 0.046) and less likely to have commercial insurance (5% vs. 15%; p = 0.035) than billed patients. CONCLUSIONS: The billing for RBC transfusion in one large institution is reassuringly valid. The specificity is excellent, and the sensitivity is higher than that seen in other studies of coding validity.

AB - BACKGROUND: Administrative data are used often for research, but without validation of their accuracy. The validity of the billing for blood transfusion was assessed in one tertiary-care hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient discharge data were retrieved from a database containing demographics, diagnoses, and charges. There was random selection of 358 patients who were billed for RBC transfusion and 358 who were not, within a 2-month period. The blood bank's transfusion records were reviewed. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of transfused patients who were billed, and specificity as the proportion of nontransfused patients who were not billed. Patient characteristics were compared by using Wilcoxon's rank sum test and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Sixty-one transfused patients were not billed for the transfusion. No patient was billed without transfusion. Thus, the sensitivity and specificity were 83 percent (95% Cl, 79-87%) and 100 percent, respectively. Nine patients who were not issued RBCs were appropriately not billed for RBCs, although the billing record suggests they had a procedure involving transfusion. These patients were called true-negative. The patients not billed were older (58 years vs. 55 years; p = 0.046) and less likely to have commercial insurance (5% vs. 15%; p = 0.035) than billed patients. CONCLUSIONS: The billing for RBC transfusion in one large institution is reassuringly valid. The specificity is excellent, and the sensitivity is higher than that seen in other studies of coding validity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035039993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035039993&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2001.41040530.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1537-2995.2001.41040530.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 11316905

AN - SCOPUS:0035039993

VL - 41

SP - 530

EP - 533

JO - Transfusion

JF - Transfusion

SN - 0041-1132

IS - 4

ER -