RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison of identifiable and non-identifiable data linkage: health technology assessment of MitraClip using registry, administrative and mortality datasets
JF BMJ Health & Care Informatics
JO BMJ Health Care Inform
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
SP e100223
DO 10.1136/bmjhci-2020-100223
VO 28
IS 1
A1 Kim Keltie
A1 Paola Cognigni
A1 Sam Gross
A1 Samuel Urwin
A1 Julie Burn
A1 Helen Cole
A1 Lee Berry
A1 Hannah Patrick
A1 Andrew Sims
YR 2021
UL http://informatics.bmj.com/content/28/1/e100223.abstract
AB Objectives The UK MitraClip registry was commissioned by National Health Service (NHS) England to assess real-world outcomes from percutaneous mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation using a new technology, MitraClip. This study aimed to determine longitudinal patient outcomes by linking to routine datasets: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Admitted Patient Care (APC) and Office of National Statistics.Methods Two methods of linkage were compared, using identifiable (NHS number, date of birth, postcode, gender) and non-identifiable data (hospital trust, age in years, admission, discharge and operation dates, operation and diagnosis codes). Outcome measures included: matching success, patient demographics, all-cause mortality and subsequent cardiac intervention.Results A total of 197 registry patients were eligible for matching with routine administrative data. Using identifiable linkage, a total of 187 patients (94.9%) were matched with the HES APC dataset. However, 21 matched individuals (11.2%) had inconsistencies across the datasets (eg, different gender) and were subsequently removed, leaving 166 (84.3%) for analysis. Using non-identifiable data linkage, a total of 170 patients (86.3%) were uniquely matched with the HES APC dataset.Baseline patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two methods of data linkage. The total number of deaths (all causes) identified from identifiable and non-identifiable linkage methods was 37 and 40, respectively, and the difference in subsequent cardiac interventions identified between the two methods was negligible.Conclusions Patients from a bespoke clinical procedural registry were matched to routine administrative data using identifiable and non-identifiable methods with equivalent matching success rates, similar baseline characteristics and similar 2-year outcomes.Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Hospital Episodes Statistics data to reproduce results are available from NHS Digital via a formal application process. The MitraClip CtE registry data is owned by NHS England; applications to access the data can be made to NHS England’s specialised services Clinical Panel.