OBJECTIVE: First, to test the validity of self-reported quality of care and treatment measures compared with medical records and administrative data for: eye examinations, hemoglobin A1C tests, and use of insulin and oral agents for adult patients with diabetes; and secondly to assess the consistency between medical record information and administrative data for the same measures plus microalbumin testing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from telephone survey, primary care medical and eye records, and administrative claims. SETTING: Statewide health maintenance organization in Minnesota, USA, 1995. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and forty adults with diabetes, aged 31-64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validity++ of self-reported diabetes quality of care measures compared with a criterion standard combining information from primary care and eye records with information from administrative data; and reliability of medical record information compared with administrative data. RESULTS: Although the sensitivity of self-reported eye examination was high (89%), the specificity was low (65%). Self-report of hemoglobin A1C also had high sensitivity (99%) and a lower specificity than that of eye examination (28%). The two information sources (medical records and claims) used in the criterion standard each contained complementary and non-overlapping information. Reliability was highest for microalbumin testing (kappa, 0.75) and lowest for eye examination (kappa, 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care measures for diabetes are often drawn from a variety of sources. To the extent that data sources are biased, the measures can be misleading. Self-report is likely to lead to an overestimate of eye screening and the measurement of hemoglobin A1C. Reported rates of quality of care should be inspected carefully. The 'same' rate taken from different sources may vary.
OBJECTIVE: First, to test the validity of self-reported quality of care and treatment measures compared with medical records and administrative data for: eye examinations, hemoglobin A1C tests, and use of insulin and oral agents for adult patients with diabetes; and secondly to assess the consistency between medical record information and administrative data for the same measures plus microalbumin testing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using data from telephone survey, primary care medical and eye records, and administrative claims. SETTING: Statewide health maintenance organization in Minnesota, USA, 1995. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and forty adults with diabetes, aged 31-64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Validity++ of self-reported diabetes quality of care measures compared with a criterion standard combining information from primary care and eye records with information from administrative data; and reliability of medical record information compared with administrative data. RESULTS: Although the sensitivity of self-reported eye examination was high (89%), the specificity was low (65%). Self-report of hemoglobin A1C also had high sensitivity (99%) and a lower specificity than that of eye examination (28%). The two information sources (medical records and claims) used in the criterion standard each contained complementary and non-overlapping information. Reliability was highest for microalbumin testing (kappa, 0.75) and lowest for eye examination (kappa, 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care measures for diabetes are often drawn from a variety of sources. To the extent that data sources are biased, the measures can be misleading. Self-report is likely to lead to an overestimate of eye screening and the measurement of hemoglobin A1C. Reported rates of quality of care should be inspected carefully. The 'same' rate taken from different sources may vary.
Authors: Beth Waitzfelder; Catherine Pihoker; Georgeanna Klingensmith; Doug Case; Andrea Anderson; Ronny A Bell; Jean M Lawrence; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Giuseppina Imperatore; Debra Standiford; Beatriz L Rodriguez; Dana Dabelea; Michael Seid Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-08-22 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Bruce E Landon; John Z Ayanian; Catherine Borbas; Edward Guadagnoli Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Katri P Palonen; Jeroan J Allison; Gustavo R Heudebert; Lisa L Willett; Catarina I Kiefe; Terry C Wall; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-02-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jinoos Yazdany; Laura Trupin; Chris Tonner; R Adams Dudley; Joann Zell; Pantelis Panopalis; Gabriela Schmajuk; Laura Julian; Patricia Katz; Lindsey A Criswell; Edward Yelin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karen J Coleman; Christine Stewart; Beth E Waitzfelder; John E Zeber; Leo S Morales; Ameena T Ahmed; Brian K Ahmedani; Arne Beck; Laurel A Copeland; Janet R Cummings; Enid M Hunkeler; Nangel M Lindberg; Frances Lynch; Christine Y Lu; Ashli A Owen-Smith; Connie Mah Trinacty; Robin R Whitebird; Gregory E Simon Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Meghan E Short; Ron Z Goetzel; Xiaofei Pei; Maryam J Tabrizi; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Teresa B Gibson; Dave M Dejoy; Mark G Wilson Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.162