Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Objective To describe the accuracy of coding of ethnicity in National Health Service (NHS) administrative hospital records compared with self-declared records in maternity booking systems, and to assess the potential impact of misclassification bias. Design Secondary analysis of data from records of women giving birth in England (2015–2017). Setting NHS Trusts in England participating in a national audit programme. Participants 1 237 213 women who gave birth between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2017. Primary and secondary outcome measures (1) Proportion of women with complete ethnicity; (2) agreement on coded ethnicity between maternity (maternity information systems (MIS)) and administrative hospital (Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)) records; (3) rates of caesarean section and obstetric anal sphincter injury by ethnic group in MIS and HES. Results 91.3% of women had complete information regarding ethnicity in HES. Overall agreement between data sets was 90.4% (κ=0.83); 94.4% when collapsed into aggregate groups of white/South Asian/black/mixed/other (κ=0.86). Most disagreement was seen in women coded as mixed in either data set. Rates of obstetrical events and complications by ethnicity were similar regardless of data set used, with the most differences seen in women coded as mixed. Conclusions Levels of accuracy in ethnicity coding in administrative hospital records support the use of ethnicity collapsed into groups (white/South Asian/black/mixed/other), but findings for mixed and other groups, and more granular classifications, should be treated with caution. Robustness of results of analyses for associations with ethnicity can be improved by using additional primary data sources.
Jardine et al. (Sun,) studied this question.