Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ Open
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ Open

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
  • About
    • General information
    • Staff
    • Editorial board
    • Open access
    • Contact
  • RSS feeds
Research

Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study

Jill Tinmouth, Rinku Sutradhar, Ning Liu, Nancy N. Baxter, Lawrence Paszat and Linda Rabeneck
August 13, 2018 6 (3) E330-E338; DOI: https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20180013
Jill Tinmouth
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Liu, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario (Tinmouth, Baxter, Rabeneck); Sunnybrook Research Institute (Tinmouth, Paszat, Rabeneck); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Baxter), St. Michael’s Hospital; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rinku Sutradhar
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Liu, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario (Tinmouth, Baxter, Rabeneck); Sunnybrook Research Institute (Tinmouth, Paszat, Rabeneck); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Baxter), St. Michael’s Hospital; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ning Liu
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Liu, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario (Tinmouth, Baxter, Rabeneck); Sunnybrook Research Institute (Tinmouth, Paszat, Rabeneck); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Baxter), St. Michael’s Hospital; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nancy N. Baxter
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Liu, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario (Tinmouth, Baxter, Rabeneck); Sunnybrook Research Institute (Tinmouth, Paszat, Rabeneck); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Baxter), St. Michael’s Hospital; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
MD PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lawrence Paszat
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Liu, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario (Tinmouth, Baxter, Rabeneck); Sunnybrook Research Institute (Tinmouth, Paszat, Rabeneck); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Baxter), St. Michael’s Hospital; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
MD MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Rabeneck
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Liu, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck); Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario (Tinmouth, Baxter, Rabeneck); Sunnybrook Research Institute (Tinmouth, Paszat, Rabeneck); Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Baxter), St. Michael’s Hospital; Dalla Lana School of Public Health (Tinmouth, Sutradhar, Baxter, Paszat, Rabeneck), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.
MD MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 2:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2:

    Flow chart showing sampling of facilities and procedures.

  • Figure 1:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1:

    Weighted sensitivity and specificity of 14 administrative data definitions using Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) codes of colonoscopy case compared to the reference standard of colonoscopy intended or performed according to the medical record. Note: CI = confidence interval.

  • Figure 3:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3:

    Receiver operating curve of the 14 definitions for colonoscopy case. Upper left point of curve corresponds to Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) definition 6: OHIP codes Z555A + E741A ± other E codes.

  • Figure 4:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4:

    Sensitivity and specificity of nonhospital setting, colonoscopy completeness, anesthesiologist assistance and polypectomy compared to reference standards. Note: CI = confidence interval, CIHI = Canadian Institute for Health Information, OHIP = Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Description of the cohorts, administrative data definitions and reference standards for 5 colonoscopy data elements

    ElementCohort description, sizeAdministrative data definitionReference standard
    Colonoscopy caseAll successfully abstracted charts, n = 1845OHIP codes: Z555A alone or in combination with any of: E740A, E741A, E747A or E705A 14 of the most clinically plausible combinations were evaluated (see Figure 1 for the specific codes included in each definition)Colonoscopy was performed, or there was intent to perform colonoscopy according to endoscopist’s procedure note*
    Nonhospital clinicCharts in which colonoscopy was intended or performed, n = 1282
    1. OHIP code E649A billed on date of colonoscopy

    2. No record in CIHI database overlapping with date of colonoscopy according to OHIP database (i.e., no record of procedure’s being done in hospital)

    3. OHIP code E649A and no overlapping record in CIHI database

    Presence of endoscopist’s procedure note in nonhospital facility chart
    Anesthesiologist assistanceCharts in which colonoscopy was intended or performed, n = 1282OHIP codes for anesthesia (003C or procedure code with “C” suffix [see supplementary tables, Appendix 1, available at www.cmajopen.ca/content/6/3/E330/suppl/DC1]) billed on date as colonoscopy in same patient
    1. Presence of anesthesiologist record in chart regardless of type of sedating agent

    2. Use of propofol as sedating agent according to anesthesiologist’s record†

    Colonoscopy completeness‡Charts in which procedure billed with colonoscopy codes, and colonoscopy or flexible sigmoidoscopy was intended,§ n = 1477 (administrative data definition 1), n = 1016 (administrative data definition 2)
    1. OHIP code E747A (to cecum) or E705A (to terminal ileum) billed among colonoscopy procedures defined using most sensitive definition (Z555A ± other E codes)

    2. OHIP code E747A or E705A billed among colonoscopy procedures defined using most accurate definition (Z555A + E741 ± other E codes)

    Colonoscopy “intended” and “complete” according to endoscopist’s procedure note
    Polypectomy¶Charts in which colonoscopy was intended or performed,** n = 1256 (reference standard 1), n = 1252 (reference standard 2)
    1. OHIP code Z571A alone

    2. OHIP code Z571A, Z570A or E685A

    3. OHIP code Z571A, Z570A, E685A or E717A

    1. Polyp visualized or polypectomy described according to endoscopist’s procedure note

    2. Adenoma, advanced adenoma or sessile serrated polyp according to pathologist’s report††

    • Note: CIHI = Canadian Institute for Health Information, OHIP = Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

    • ↵* Completed by the endoscopist; includes a description of the procedure, including findings.

    • ↵† Completed by the anesthesiologist; record of anesthetic administered during the procedure.

    • ↵‡ Procedures intended as flexible sigmoidoscopy for which E747A or E705A was billed were classified as false-positive. Procedures intended as flexible sigmoidoscopy for which E747A and E705A were not billed were classified as false-negative.

    • ↵§ Excluding those with prior total colectomy or right hemicolectomy.

    • ↵¶ Because the histologic findings of the polyp are not available in administrative databases, we could not define adenoma using these data.

    • ↵** Excluding those with missing data for reference standard.

    • ↵†† Report on the histologic findings of specimens, such as polyps, obtained at colonoscopy.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Patient and procedure characteristics for all successfully abstracted charts and for charts in which colonoscopy was intended or performed

    CharacteristicNo. (%) of charts*
    All abstracted charts
    n = 1845
    Colonoscopy intended or performed
    n = 1282
    Age group, yr
     < 50469 (25.4)251 (19.6)
     50–59517 (28.0)395 (30.8)
     60–69430 (23.3)327 (25.5)
     70–74174 (9.4)134 (10.4)
     > 74255 (13.8)175 (13.6)
    Sex
     Female986 (53.4)709 (55.3)
     Male859 (46.6)573 (44.7)
    Procedure(s) performed†
     Colonoscopy only1143 (62.0)1125 (87.8)
     Gastroscopy only45 (2.4) ≤ 5
     Flexible sigmoidoscopy only432 (23.4) ≤ 5
     Colonoscopy + gastroscopy200 (10.8)151 (11.8)
     Flexible sigmoidoscopy + gastroscopy12 (0.6)≤ 5
     Colonoscopy + other procedure≤ 5≤ 5
     Flexible sigmoidoscopy + other procedure≤ 50 (0)
     Other procedure only6 (0.3)0 (0)
    Median neighbourhood income quintile‡
     1 (lowest)300 (16.3)205 (16.0)
     2331 (17.9)225 (17.6)
     3337 (18.3)233 (18.2)
     4393 (21.3)265 (20.7)
     5 (highest)474 (25.7)348 (27.1)
     Missing10 (0.5)6 (0.5)
    Setting
     Nonhospital clinic284 (15.4)216 (16.8)
     Hospital1561 (84.6)1066 (83.2)
    • ↵* To ensure confidentiality, counts of 5 or less are suppressed.

    • ↵† Based on findings at chart abstraction.

    • ↵‡ Median annual neighborhood household income at the level of enumeration area, obtained from Statistics Canada, was linked to patient postal code.

    • View popup
    Table 3:

    Positive predictive values of OHIP definition of colonoscopy, nonhospital setting, colonoscopy completeness, anesthesiologist assistance and polypectomy compared to reference standards

    OHIP definitionPPV (95% CI)
    Colonoscopy case
    1. Z555A ± other E codes96.4 (95.2–97.6)
    2. Z555A + E740A ± other E codes97.7 (96.6–98.8)
    3. Z555A + E740A + E741A ± other E codes99.1 (98.0–100)
    4. Z555A + E740A + E741A + E747A ± other E codes99.1 (98.1–100)
    5. Z555A + E740A + E741A + E747A + E705A98.3 (96.0–100)
    6. Z555A + E741A ± other E codes99.1 (98.1–100)
    7. Z555A + E747A ± other E codes99.2 (98.1–100)
    8. Z555A + E705A ± other E codes98.3 (96.0–100)
    9. Z555A + E740A + E747A ± other E codes99.1 (98.1–100)
    10. Z555A + E740A + E705A ± other E codes98.3 (96.0–100)
    11. Z555A + E741A + E747A ± other E codes99.2 (98.1–100)
    12. Z555A + E741A + E705A ± other E codes98.3 (96.0–100)
    13. Z555A + E747A + E705A ± other E codes98.3 (96.0–100)
    14. Z555A + 1 or more of E740A, E741A, E747A or E705A97.7 (96.6–98.8)
    Nonhospital setting
    1. E649A billed on date of colonoscopy100 (100–100)
    2. No record in CIHI database overlapping with date of colonoscopy according to OHIP database100 (100–100)
    3. E649A and no overlapping record in CIHI database100 (100–100)
    Colonoscopy completeness, defined using most sensitive colonoscopy definition
    1. Weighted analysis results99.0 (98.3–99.7)
    2. Unweighted analysis results99.0 (98.3–99.7)
    Colonoscopy completeness, defined using most accurate colonoscopy definition
    1. Weighted analysis results99.0 (98.3–99.7)
    2. Unweighted analysis results99.0 (98.3–99.7)
    Anesthesiologist assistance
    1. v. “anesthesiologist’s record”83.8 (71.5–96.0)
    2. v. “use of propofol”77.2 (64.3–90.1)
    Polypectomy
    v. “polyp seen or removed”
     1. Z571A alone99.0 (97.7–100)
     2. Z571A, Z570A or E685A98.7 (97.3–100)
     3. Z571A, Z570A, E717A or E685A79.2 (74.3–84.2)
    v. “histology”
     1. Z571A alone68.1 (62.2–74.1)
     2. Z571A, Z570A or E685A64.1 (58.1–70.2)
     3. Z571A, Z570A, E717A or E685A49.7 (44.4–55.0)
    • Note: CI = confidence interval, CIHI = Canadian Institute for Health Information, OHIP = Ontario Health Insurance Plan, PPV = positive predictive value.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ Open: 6 (3)
Vol. 6, Issue 3
1 Jul 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ Open web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study
Jill Tinmouth, Rinku Sutradhar, Ning Liu, Nancy N. Baxter, Lawrence Paszat, Linda Rabeneck
Jul 2018, 6 (3) E330-E338; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20180013

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study
Jill Tinmouth, Rinku Sutradhar, Ning Liu, Nancy N. Baxter, Lawrence Paszat, Linda Rabeneck
Jul 2018, 6 (3) E330-E338; DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20180013
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections

About

  • General Information
  • Staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panel
  • Contact Us
  • Reprints
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2025, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 2291-0026

All editorial matter in CMAJ OPEN represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected].

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

 

Powered by HighWire