Kids' Inpatient Database (KID)

Database Name: Kids' Inpatient Database (KID)
Description/Data sourceFederal-state-industry administrative Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database managed by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.  First produced in 1997 and released every three years.
Overview of data contents2009 retrospective dataset includes 4,121 hospitals from 44 states, with a 10% sample of "normal newborns" born in each hospital and 80% of other pediatric cases per hospital.  Contains information from all payers and all conditions.
Patient ages includedPatients 20 years of age and younger.
PracticeInpatients within hospitals participating in the KID program.
Date range available1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. Cross-sectional only. Data collection ongoing.
Relevant Work
Example publications
Sun GH, Auger KA, Aliu O, Patrick SW, DeMonner S, Davis MM. Posttonsillectomy hemorrhage in children with von Willebrand disease or hemophilia. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013 Mar;139(3):245-9. 
Pritchett CV, Thorne MC. Incidence of pediatric acute mastoiditis: 1997-2006. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 May;138(5);451-5.
Cost estimate(s)$30-50/year for students. $200-350/year for all other users.
Contact/website information
Ease of useThe KID is among the easier databases to use overall, though sampling methodology may be challenging for researchers inexperienced in health services research. Data are provided on CD; website states that 10GB of hard drive space is necessary. Data will need to be converted into Stata, SAS, SPSS or similar format before usage. Some versions of Stata may be unable to handle the entire dataset; selecting subsets of target data may be necessary.
Data analysisWeighting is required to obtain nationally representative estimates. Weighting requires the use of specific variables provided in the dataset; specific instructions for statistical programming can be found at the HCUP website: Patients cannot be tracked longitudinally. Data variables in KID are nearly identical to those in other HCUP databases.
ProsInexpensive, simple to acquire, clean data.
ConsLack of longitudinal follow-up within or across years.