Common Quality Issues with Revised Birth Certificate Data

David Justice

Data Acquisition and Evaluation Branch

Division of Vital Statistics, NCHS

2007: The Scales Tipped

0 2 9 1420

27

4518%

32%

83%

58%

0% 5%

49%

0

10

20

30

40

50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

States

Data

Median Reporting Lag

7252

38

225

2729 27

46

282927280

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Infant Death Underreporting

New item “Infant Alive at Time of Report”

If response is “NO” then a matching infant death record should be identified

March 2006 – Article in DVS newsletter July 2006 – Presentation at VSCP

Meeting

Infant Death Underreporting

January 2007 – DAEB sent “Infant Alive” reports to 2005 birth revisers

March 2007 – DAEB sent “Infant Alive” reports to all 2006 revisers

April 2007 – Article sent by Charlie Rothwell

May 2007 – DAEB sent < 500g reports to non-revisers

Infant Death Underreporting

Positive response to reports from DAEB

Identify infant deaths that have not been reported or linked

Identify birth records where “Infant Alive” is reported incorrectly

Identify birth records that should have been reported as a fetal death

Data Quality Issues

Out of range values and inconsistencies

State system not adhering to specs State specs different from NCHS specs NCHS specs not detailed enough Some problems not identifiable on an

individual record basis

Data Quality Issues

1 APGAR SCORE AT 10 MINUTES Depends on Apgar at 5 Minutes Only if Apgar at 5 Minutes is < 6 Code ’88’ is used when Apgar at

5 minutes is 06 - 10

Data Quality Issues

2 HISPANIC ORIGIN OF FATHER Unknown level inconsistent

with other father’s information (race, education, dob)

Defaulting to ‘NNNN’ when unmarried instead of ‘UUUU’

Data Quality Issues

3 INVALID FIPS CODES Blanks are invalid Use ZZ for country or state Use 999 for county Use 99999 for place

Data Quality Issues

4 METHOD OF DELIVERY – Attempted Forceps, Vacuum

Vs. Final Route and Method of Delivery = Forceps, Vacuum

Forceps/Vacuum should be reported in only one place

Data Quality Issues

5 RISK FACTOR – Previous C-Section Bad combinations with # of C-

sections: Yes, 00 No, 99 or reported number Unknown, 00 or reported number

Data Quality Issues

6 RISK FACTOR – Infertility Treatment

Subcategories added end of 2003 If infertility treatment = Y then

report Y, N or U for subcategories Otherwise, subcategories X or U

Data Quality Issues

7 MONTH DEFAULTS ON DATES Other Pregnancy Outcome Last Live Birth First Prenatal Care Visit Month reported as 01 instead

of 99 when unknown month

Data Quality Issues

8 OUTLYING VALID VALUES Mother’s Height in Feet

(1,2,7,8) Plurality (>6)

Not Classifiable Levels

Contract Standards Reviser Levels are being

monitoredAvailable on VSCP Website2007 levels have been addedSome items with 0 unknowns?

Facility Reports

All states are submitting facility codes on the revised file

2005 Joint presentation by NCHS and N.Y. State

NCHS can produce reports by facility for any values, particularly unknowns

Void Flags

Void Lists not required if void flag used properly

Not used by all revised states Annual Final Void List still

required

2008 Documentation

Deliverable each Fall – plan to request a full set from all States in 2008

Include certificates, worksheets, and system documentation – useful for 1st time revisers

NCHS would like to review drafts in advance

Questions or Concerns?

DAEB Statistician or Vital Statistics Specialist

David JusticeDVS/DAEB

Research Triangle Park, NCdjustice@cdc.gov

919 541 0589