Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Application of the HADQ scoring tool reveals variations in data quality across countries, suggesting paths for improvement.
Background and Objective: Hospital administrative data serves as a rich source of information for resource allocation, surveillance, and international comparisons. Differences in coding practices and guidelines lead to variations in hospital administrative data. This study outlines our team’s process of creating a standardised tool, the Hospital Administrative Data Quality (HADQ) scoring tool, which will allow countries to assess their HADQ. Method: We previously developed 24 indicators through a Delphi consensus method. To test the applicability of these indicators, we approached 50 countries with an online survey comprised of qualitative and quantitative questions based on the 24 indicators. An overall score out of 20 for data quality was calculated for each country based on the survey responses. The score was classified into three categories: high data quality, moderate data quality and low data quality. Results: Of the 50 countries invited, 17 responded. Surveys from two countries were excluded due to insufficient data. Country responses were evaluated and scored by dimension. The data quality indicators showed positive face validity and were applicable for most countries providing comparative information for development of the tool with good discrimination. Canada, United States of America, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Spain were among the countries with an overall high data quality score. Most countries scored high in 3 out of 5 dimensions of data quality. A few counties scored 0 in “Relevance” and “Timeliness” resulting in a lower score. Conclusion The HADQ tool developed in this study will support the assessment and comparison of HADQ by applying the same standard within and across countries. Implications for health information management practice: The HADQ tool can be used by diverse users such as the researchers, government bodies and policymakers interested in improving hospital administrative data quality following standardised indicators that can applied globally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sandhu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: