Elsevier

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Volume 96, Issue 5, November 2013, Pages 1734-1739
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Original article
General thoracic
External Validation of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database

Presented at the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Los Angeles, CA, Jan 26–30, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.04.124Get rights and content

Background

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) General Thoracic Surgery Database (GTSD) reports outstanding results for lung and esophageal cancer resection. However, a major weakness of the GTSD has been the lack of validation of this voluntary registry. The purpose of this study was to perform an external, independent audit to assess the accuracy of the data collection process and the quality of the database.

Methods

An independent firm was contracted to audit 5% of sites randomly selected from the GTDB in 2011. Audits were performed remotely to maximize the number of audits performed and reduce cost. Auditors compared lobectomy cases submitted to the GTSD with the hospital operative logs to evaluate completeness of the data. In addition, 20 lobectomy records from each site were audited in detail. Agreement rates were calculated for 32 individual data elements, 7 data categories pertaining to patient status or care delivery, and an overall agreement rate for each site. Six process variables were also evaluated to assess best practice for data collection and submission.

Results

Ten sites were audited from the 222 participants. Comparison of the 559 submitted lobectomy cases with operative logs from each site identified 28 omissions, a 94.6% agreement rate (discrepancies/site range, 2 to 27). Importantly, cases not submitted had no mortality or major morbidity, indicating a lack of purposeful omission. The aggregate agreement rates for all categories were greater than 90%. The overall data accuracy was 94.9%.

Conclusions

External audits of the GTSD validate the accuracy and completeness of the data. Careful examination of unreported cases demonstrated no purposeful omission or gaming. Although these preliminary results are quite good, it is imperative that the audit process is refined and continues to expand along with the GTSD to insure reliability of the database. The audit results are currently being incorporated into educational and quality improvement processes to add further value.

Section snippets

Material and Methods

The STS GTSD was initiated in 2003 and the first validation of the GTSD was conducted in 2010. The audit process was patterned after that previously performed to validate the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, with specific parameters developed within the GTSD and audit taskforces 7, 8. The first two audits have focused on lobectomy. Thirty-two specific individual data elements within seven categories of variables were selected based on defined quality care measures, specific data elements

Results

A total of 559 lobectomy cases submitted by the 20 audited sites to the database were compared with operative logs from each site. The number of cases for comparison at each site ranged from 20 to 196, with the number of discrepancies per site ranging from 2 to 27. A total of 28 omissions were identified, resulting in a 94.9% overall agreement rate. Importantly, those cases not submitted had no mortality or major morbidity indicating a lack of purposeful omission.

The data collection methods

Comment

The STS surgeons’ audit of the GTSD was designed and conducted to evaluate the accuracy, consistency, and completeness of data collection and ultimately to validate the quality of the data. The overall high agreement rates reported for all variables analyzed in the audit process demonstrate that the data contained in the GTSD are both complete and accurate.

The process of comparing hospital surgery logs of eligible lobectomy cases to those submitted to the database was included in the audit to

Cited by (38)

  • Pre-COVID-19 National Mortality Trends in Open and Video-Assisted Lobectomy for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

    2022, Journal of Surgical Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    The NIS also does not contain details on patient presentation, cancer pathology, surgeon experience, and details of surgical procedure, which would have been important, as these have previously been identified as risk factors for adverse outcome. However, our dataset may provide more information about real-world practice as opposed to databases, such as the GTSD, which is less generalizable because of the voluntary participation of institutions included in it, making it prone to selection bias.16,17 In this nationally representative, multi-institutional study based on insurance claims data, we demonstrate that utilization of VATS lobectomies has steadily increased over time, more so among small hospitals compared with large hospitals.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text