CHD Surveillance
April 14, 2015
1230-130 pm
Attendees:
CDC: Jill Glidewell, Bobby Lyles, Pam Costa, CJ Alverson, Tiffany Colarusso
NY: Alissa Van Zutphen, Marilyn Browne, Gwen LaSelva, Keewan Kim
MA: Marlene Anderka, Angela Lin, Julie Dunn, Chris Couser, Al Ozonoff, Stan Obenhaus
Emory: Cheryl Raskind-Hood, Trenton Hoffman, Carol Hogue, Wendy Book, Rusty Rodriquez

Site updates:
 Emory:
o Continuing to work with the data, assessing issues, still some cleaning to do.
o Overall Emory has found the # of cases they expected
o Cheryl/Carol have been working on capture-recapture for overall Emory-site prevalence.
o Katie John working on her thesis – may present to this group on a future call.
 Massachusetts:
o Continuing to look for potential sources of duplicate cases (given that the number of cases is 3-4 times
what they expected to get).
o Duplicates likely in the APCD data (version 2). Stan is working with a programmer to potentially
deduplicate cases.
o Version 3 of APCD will have a unique ID, likely eliminating the problem of duplicates in version 2.
o Looking at 11, 12, 13 year olds (less likely to move in to MA from out of state) and comparing to total
births by county
o Running more data checks, looking at descriptives, meeting with collaborators on 4/14/15 to discuss.
 New York:
o Updated encounter & summary data for dichotomized race variable
o Hiring a scientist to analyze & assist with paper writing

Clinician update:
o Tiffany summarized the call notes from the March 2015 clinician call (pasted below in red for
completeness)
o Cleaning of codes should be done at the site level before transmission of data
o The April 21 call will discuss preliminary data: sites are asked to do frequency runs of defect codes &
prepare to discuss.
I.
Site updates:
a. Emory: New data submitted. Concern for duplicates with Medicaid data; after relinkage, number of cases
decreased to approx. 21,000. About ½ from 5-county Atlanta area, ½ from rest of state. Pregnancy paper draft
circulated. Expected approx. 20,000 from metro Atlanta alone.
b. MA: Still recovering from APCD hard-drive crash. Detailed MA methods sent to CDC.
c. NY: data sent. No further official looking at multiple data codes – Alyssa will send what they’ve done. The adult
data came only from SPARCS (inpt/outpt) so less likely to have multiple codes. Adolescents had more data
sources thus more codes. Expected approx. 4800 adolescents; have 2800 (58%).
II.
Review of Summary NY data
a. Why split into isolated vs multiple CHD codes? Cases will be classified/reported by defect group/severity, not by
# codes. However, it is important during data cleaning to separate the cases with multiple CHD codes (which may
require decisions/cleaning). Some highlights from prelim NY data:
-1-
b.
III.
IV.
i. Adolescents(n=2806): 63% (1766) were isolated, 37% had >1 CHD code. Of those that were isolated,
92% (n= 1615) had non-severe CHD. 361 (20% of all isolated cases) had VSDs and 294 (17%) had ASDs
ii. Adults (n=4432): 94% (4160) were isolated, 6% had >1 CHD code. Of those that were isolated, 98%
(n=4067) had non-severe CHD. 2122 (51% of all isolated cases) had ASD and 210 (5%) had VSDs.
Eventually will place and report cases in defect categories, but the data needs to be cleaned
Diagnostic data cleaning discussion
a. The NY cases with >1 CHD were not analyzed by defect, but it was noted that there were several instances of
minor/secondary codes. Back in Sept 2014 and finalized in October 2014, it was agreed to ignore/exclude select
minor/secondary/nonspecific defects if occurring with other codes. That is, only count if in isolation. These
codes were denoted in subsequent spreadsheets and guidelines as having gray shadowed color. Thus, while all
defects should be retained at the encounter level, for the summary record, if another CHD is present, these minor
codes should be excluded and not appear.
b.
Discussed what to do if a case had >1 minor code and no major codes (e.g. AI + MR, or AI + nonspecific chd). This
needs to be agreed on by all 3 sites.
i. Exclude the non-specific codes in favor of more specific minor codes
ii. Keep both minor codes in their respective categories
iii. Review other clinical data (e.g. interventions) or count # times the code occurred to determine which
would be the more significant CHD to keep. (e.g. AI+MR+ aortic valve replacement -> keep AI)
c.
Also need to exclude any case that only has fetal echo and no pregnancy codes or other encounter or procedure.
Presumably if the case was truly a mother with chd getting a fetal echo on a baby, there would be other
pregnancy codes.
i. If no pregnancy codes and case has fetal echo, presume this is erroneously captured infant, not
adolescent/adult.
ii. Need to work on the exact criteria for this exclusion.
Process for diagnostic data cleaning for the summary record. This needs to be agreed on by all 3 sites, with further
discussion amongst the PI and data folks as to who will do the cleaning and to assure it is being done similarily across
the sites. Please refer to the spreadsheet “code_category_map_Dec2014” in which the gray highlighted codes are
the minor or nonspecific CHD codes, hereafter referred to as “minor”. This mapping has been discussed and agreed
on in the past.
a. Exclude cases with only fetal echo (specific criteria still need to be determined - see discussion above)
b. Split remaining cases into isolated (only 1 CHD code) and multiples (>1 CHD code)
c. For isolated:
i. Apply the categories (see spreadsheet) to assign the diagnostic codes to the larger CHD categories
(severe, valvar, shunt, valvar+shunt, Other).
ii. The minor CHDs ARE counted if there is only 1 CHD.
d. For the multiples:
i. If a case has a ≥1 major CHD and ≥1 minor CHD:
1.
Exclude the minor codes from Summary Record and only keep the major CHD.
2.
This MAY result in a case having only 1 major CHD, in which case it can be considered an
“isolated”.
3.
All diagnostic codes are retained in encounter level data
ii. If a case has >1 minor CHD only (no major CHDs), then
1.
Need a frequency list of combinations
2.
Clinicians will need to review and decide how to assign the cases (see discussion above)
iii. Apply the categories (see spreadsheet) to assign the diagnostic codes to the larger CHD categories
(severe, valvar, shunt, valvar+shunt, Other). This has been discussed and agreed on in the past.
1.
If a case has a severe CHD, regardless of the presence of other CHDs, the case is counted
ONLY in the severe category.
2.
If a case has only non-severe CHDs (i.e., any other category), case is counted in all the
categories.
iv. Create list of code frequency combinations for review if needed
e. Issues that may arise. Need to review and clean the diagnostic codes.
-2-
i. Noted in the NY data, there may be times where two codes may mean the same thing – e.g. 745.1 and
745.10 can only mean Truncus arteriosus. Same with 7456 and 74560. However, 7451 and 74510 do
NOT mean the same thing (7451 is a broad category of all TGA but 74510 only refers to d-TGA type).
ii. Similar codes may be grouped together. E.g. 756.6 (AVSD unspecified) and 745.69 (AVSD, Other) could
be combined. These decisions will be discussed further and agreed on by all.
V.
CCS code mapping: See “MASTER_DXREF_Rev15”. This was a cross-walk created by Emory for ICD-9-CM -> CCS ->
CDC database. Please review. Anything that is “blank” for the CDC database columns will NOT be included in this
project data.
VI.
Maternal death:
a. Cause of death is known from death certificate, but many cases can’t identify cause of death b/c no death
certificate. For pregnant women who die, can’t know if the death is cardiac related or obstetric related. Bobby
will add a box in summary record for “maternal death, NOS”
VII.
a.
b.
VIII.
a.
b.
c.
IX.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Clinical section of methods paper:
Ami and Michelle have commented/edited. Other clinicians need to edit/comment.
Need all sites to document the sampling results done early in the study – table is filled in with Emory data only
Guidelines for high-risk OB care:
Discussed whether there were guidelines or practice for referring women with CHD to MFM (define as a high risk
pregnancy on basis of maternal CHD). No specific US guidelines are known, although data exists from other
countries.
European Society of Cardiology has guidelines which are followed here in US.
Clinicians will circulate amongst us the papers/guidance that clarifies this issue.
TO DO:
Tiffany will circulate the table of our code groupings alongside the Marelli ones
Sites need to discuss diagnostic data cleaning
George Lui and others to comment on the criteria for excluding cases with only a fetal echo.
George will also start compiling procedure codes that align with the minor CHDs, for potential use in dealing with
cases that have multiple minor codes and no major codes.
All will review the CCS maping
All will review/revise the clinician methods section
Bobby will add another box for maternal cause of death to database.
Circulate papers/guidance on pregnancy care if available.
Review/Discussion of demographic data:
o Sites presented demographic data (below) and discussed similarities/differences between sites.
Demographic characteristics of adolescents and adults with congenital heart defects (CHD) in NY, 2008-2010
Adolescents
N
Total
Data sources
Age (years) b
%
2780
Clinic data base
Adults
N
%
4432
2563
92.19
−
−
SPARCS Inpatient
281
10.11
3413
77.01
SPARCS Outpatient
329
11.83
1313
29.63
CMR a
710
25.54
−
−
10 - 17
2038
73.31
−
−
18 - 20
742
26.69
−
−
Adolescents c
-3-
Adults d
Sex
20 - 30
−
−
471
10.63
31 - 40
−
−
458
10.33
41 - 50
−
−
716
16.16
51 - 64
−
−
1143
25.79
65+
−
−
1644
37.09
Male
1270
45.68
2042
46.07
Female
1057
38.02
2390
53.93
453
16.29
−
−
1184
42.59
4332
97.74
12
0.43
100
2.26
1584
56.98
−
−
Unknown
−
−
−
−
American Indian/ Alaskan Native
4
0.14
14
0.32
Asian
23
0.83
45
1.02
Black
280
10.07
586
13.22
2
0.07
1
0.02
822
29.57
3137
70.78
1379
49.60
16
0.36
Unknown
275
9.89
633
14.28
Hispanic
345
12.41
558
12.59
Non-Hispanic
846
30.43
3788
85.47
1406
50.58
−
−
183
6.58
86
1.94
28
1.01
171
3.86
1703
61.26
2415
54.49
Medicaid
278
10.00
354
7.99
Medicare
3
0.11
1447
32.65
96
3.45
45
1.02
672
24.17
−
−
−
−
−
−
Unavailable
Vital status
Living
Deceased
Unavailable
Race e
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander
White
Unavailable
Ethnicity
Unavailable
Unknown
Insurance status
Self pay
Private
Other, specified
Unavailable
Unknown
a
Only cases identified in clinic and SPARCS data bases were matched to CMR to obtain birth-related information; CMR is not a data source.
b
Calculated as of 1/1/2010.
c
Includes 113 cases of age 10, because we identified cases by birth year initially, whereas we calculated age as of 1/1/2010 afterwards.
d
Includes 22 cases of age 20, because we identified cases by birth year initially, whereas we calculated age as of 1/1/2010 afterwards.
e
Includes 5 multirace cases.
CMR, Congenital Malformations Registry; SPARCS, Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System.
-4-
Emory Site
SUMMARY TABLES:
Number of index cases / records transferred:
Adolescents
Adults
(11-20)*
(21-64)*
TOTAL
Tables
S_CASE_SUMMARY
8273
12638
20911
S_CHD_DIAGNOSIS
8273
12638
20911
S_OTHERMEDCONDITIONS
5419
9269
14688
S_PROCEDURES
6246
5329
11575
* as of 1/1/2010
DEMOGRAPHICS
agegrp Frequency
Percent
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
11-20
8273
39.56 Adolescents
21-30
4353
20.82 Adults
31-40
3048
14.58
41-50
1957
9.36
51-60
2310
11.05
61-64
970
4.64
TOTAL
n=12638 (60.44%)
20911
100.00%
Mean Age
N
Mean
Std Dev Std Err
Minimum
Maximum
Overall
20911
29.7656
15.5916
0.1078
11.0000
64.0000
Adults
12638
39.1561
13.2229
0.1176
21.0000
64.0000
Adolescents
8273
15.4205
2.6197
0.0288
11.0000
20.0000
Vital
Status Frequency
Percent
Sex Frequency
Percent
-5-
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Living
Male
9829
Female
11082
19170
Deceased
91.67
1741
Race
8.33
Frequency
47.00
53.00
Percent
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
White
6349
41.06
Black
3928
25.41
Other
5184
33.53
.
5450
26%
Ethnicity Frequency
Percent
Primary Language Frequency
Percent
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Hispanic
288
1.62
English
4462
84
Non-Hispanic
7797
43.94
Spanish
Unknown
9659
54.44
Other, Specify
82.37
1.55
31
0.57
Unavailable
.
3167
15%
Unknown
28
812
0.52
.
Residency
Frequency
15494
50
Known to be in state, out of catchment* area
Residing in catchment area
.
10707
*catchment area: Clayton, Cobb,
DeKalb, Fulton,
0.24
9842
Gwinnett
47.78
51.98
312
Dbs/ data sources
Frequency
74%
Percent
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Known to be out of state/country
14.99
Percent
-6-
SIBLEY
4573
CHOA
1220
PCS
68
21.87
5.83 Adolescents (Clinical & Billing)
0.33
EMORY
5418
25.91
GRADY
357
1.71 Adults
ST JOE’S
438
2.09
MCAID
6704
32.06 Administrative
MACDP
5271
25.21 Registry
(Clinical & Billing)
89%% seen in 1 db;
11% seen in more than 1 db
Count
Count of ID
%
1
18575
88.8%
2
1711
8.2%
3
471
2.3%
4
131
0.6%
5
23
0.1%
20911
100.0%
-7-
Vital Status
VitalStatus
Col Pct ‚No
adolescent
‚Yes
‚ Total
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Living ‚ 11252 ‚ 7918 ‚ 19170
‚ 53.81 ‚ 37.87 ‚ 91.67
‚ 58.70 ‚ 41.30 ‚
‚ 89.03 ‚ 95.71 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Deceased ‚ 1386 ‚ 355 ‚ 1741
‚ 6.63 ‚ 1.70 ‚ 8.33
‚ 79.61 ‚ 20.39 ‚
‚ 10.97 ‚ 4.29 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Total
12638
8273 20911
60.44 39.56 100.00
Statistic
DF
Value
Prob
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Chi-Square
1 291.9507 <.0001
Sex
Sex
adolescent
Col Pct ‚No
‚Yes
‚ Total
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Male
‚ 5350 ‚ 4479 ‚ 9829
‚ 25.58 ‚ 21.42 ‚ 47.00
‚ 54.43 ‚ 45.57 ‚
‚ 42.33 ‚ 54.14 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Female ‚ 7288 ‚ 3794 ‚ 11082
‚ 34.85 ‚ 18.14 ‚ 53.00
-8-
‚ 65.76 ‚ 34.24 ‚
‚ 57.67 ‚ 45.86 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Total
12638
8273 20911
60.44 39.56 100.00
Statistic
DF
Value
Prob
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
Chi-Square
1 279.8284 <.0001
Race
adolescents
Frequency‚
Col Pct ‚
0‚
1‚ Total
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
. ‚ 1794 ‚ 3656 ‚
.
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
1 ‚ 4764 ‚ 1585 ‚ 6349
white
‚ 30.81 ‚ 10.25 ‚ 41.06
‚ 75.04 ‚ 24.96 ‚
‚ 43.93 ‚ 34.33 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
2 ‚ 2861 ‚ 1067 ‚ 3928
black
‚ 18.50 ‚ 6.90 ‚ 25.41
‚ 72.84 ‚ 27.16 ‚
‚ 26.38 ‚ 23.11 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
3 ‚ 3219 ‚ 1965 ‚ 5184
‚ 20.82 ‚ 12.71 ‚ 33.53
Other
‚ 62.09 ‚ 37.91 ‚
‚ 29.68 ‚ 42.56 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Total
10844
4617 15461
70.14 29.86 100.00
-9-
Frequency Missing = 5450
Statistic
DF
Chi-Square
Value
Prob
2 246.4746 <.0001
Effective Sample Size = 15461
Frequency Missing = 5450
WARNING: 26% of the data are missing.
Ethnicity
Ethnicity
adolescent
Col Pct
‚No
‚Yes
‚ Total
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
. ‚ 608 ‚ 2559 ‚
.
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Hispanic
‚ 122 ‚ 166 ‚ 288
‚ 0.69 ‚ 0.94 ‚ 1.62
‚ 42.36 ‚ 57.64 ‚
‚ 1.01 ‚ 2.91 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Non-Hispanic ‚ 5379 ‚ 2418 ‚ 7797
‚ 30.31 ‚ 13.63 ‚ 43.94
‚ 68.99 ‚ 31.01 ‚
‚ 44.71 ‚ 42.32 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Unknown
‚ 6529 ‚ 3130 ‚ 9659
‚ 36.80 ‚ 17.64 ‚ 54.44
‚ 67.59 ‚ 32.41 ‚
‚ 54.27 ‚ 54.78 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Total
12030
5714 17744
67.80 32.20 100.00
-10-
Frequency Missing = 3167
Statistic
DF
Chi-Square
Value
2
Prob
90.5930 <.0001
Massachusetts
Descriptive Statistics, CHD Surveillance
Data
Freque Percen
Source
ncy
t
s:
APCD,
Provide
r
Instituti
ons,
Vital
Record
s
AgeGr
p
10-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90+
Total
13929
9829
8976
11792
12681
9688
6745
5092
1245
79977
17.42
12.29
11.22
14.74
15.86
12.11
8.43
6.37
1.56
100.00
Primary Language
adolescent
Col Pct
‚No
‚Yes
‚ Total
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
. ‚ 8383 ‚ 7111 ‚
.
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
English
‚ 3544 ‚ 918 ‚ 4462
‚ 65.42 ‚ 16.95 ‚ 82.37
‚ 79.43 ‚ 20.57 ‚
‚ 83.29 ‚ 79.00 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
-11-
Spanish
‚
56 ‚
28 ‚
84
‚ 1.03 ‚ 0.52 ‚ 1.55
‚ 66.67 ‚ 33.33 ‚
‚ 1.32 ‚ 2.41 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Other, Specify ‚
28 ‚
3‚
31
‚ 0.52 ‚ 0.06 ‚ 0.57
‚ 90.32 ‚ 9.68 ‚
‚ 0.66 ‚ 0.26 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Unavailable ‚ 603 ‚ 209 ‚ 812
‚ 11.13 ‚ 3.86 ‚ 14.99
‚ 74.26 ‚ 25.74 ‚
‚ 14.17 ‚ 17.99 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Unknown
‚
24 ‚
4‚
28
‚ 0.44 ‚ 0.07 ‚ 0.52
‚ 85.71 ‚ 14.29 ‚
‚ 0.56 ‚ 0.34 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Total
4255
1162
5417
78.55 21.45 100.00
Frequency Missing = 15494
Statistic
DF
Chi-Square
Value
4
Prob
21.3408 0.0003
Residency
Residency
Col Pct
adolescent
‚No
‚Yes
‚ Total
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
.
‚ 127 ‚ 185 ‚
.
-12-
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Known to be out ‚
49 ‚
1‚
50
of state/country ‚ 0.24 ‚ 0.00 ‚ 0.24
‚ 98.00 ‚ 2.00 ‚
‚ 0.39 ‚ 0.01 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Known to be in ‚ 5664 ‚ 4178 ‚ 9842
state, out of ‚ 27.50 ‚ 20.28 ‚ 47.78
catchment area ‚ 57.55 ‚ 42.45 ‚
‚ 45.27 ‚ 51.66 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Residing in
‚ 6798 ‚ 3909 ‚ 10707
catchment area ‚ 33.00 ‚ 18.98 ‚ 51.98
‚ 63.49 ‚ 36.51 ‚
‚ 54.34 ‚ 48.33 ‚
ƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒˆ
Total
12511
8088 20599
60.74 39.26 100.00
Frequency Missing = 312
Statistic
Chi-Square
DF
Value
Prob
2 105.1077 <.0001
Upcoming calls:
Clinician call – 4/21/15, 12:30-1:30pm
Data call – 4/16/15, 12:30-1:30pm
Joint call – 5/12/15, 12:30-1:30pm
-13-
Appendix: New York data transmission summary from 3/2/15
Number of index cases transferred:
Tables
Adolescents
Adults
S_CASE_SUMMARY
2780
4432
S_CHD_DIAGNOSIS
2780
4432
S_OTHERMEDCONDITIONS
1251
4386
S_PROCEDURES
2721
3953
Comments
1. S_CASE_SUMMARY
- We left RecNum, SeqNum, DataSource, CodingSystem, DateOfDataSource, EncounterType,
EncounterTypeOther, LengthOfStay as blank.
- We reconciled inconsistent/multiple information on the demographic variables across data sources.
1) Sex: corrected based on the first name.
2) Race and ethnicity: reconciled based on the most frequent race appeared on the encounter-level
records of an index case; if frequencies were same from each data source, we transferred race appeared
on the clinic or SPARCS inpatient data.
3) County: we transferred county code from the most recent encounter-level record of an index case.
4) Insurance status: for index cases with more than 2 insurance information, we transferred insurance
status from their most recent encounter-level record.
5) Number of cases with inconsistent/multiple information on the demographic variables across data
sources
Adolescents
Adults
Sex
9
Race
14
8
Ethnicity
26
25
County
11
12
Insurance
118
118
2. S_ OTHERMEDCONDITIONS
- Due to index cases with more than 25 comorbidity codes, we assigned SeqNum from 1 to 3 depending on the
total number of comorbidity codes per index case.
3. S_PROCEDURES
- Due to index cases with more than 25 procedure codes, we assigned SeqNum from 1 to 3 depending on the total
number of procedure codes per index case.
- We left CodingSystem as blank because of mixture of ICD-9-CM and CPT codes within the summary record of an
index case.
-14-