Literature DB >> 15970784

Validity of using an electronic medical record for assessing quality of care in an outpatient setting.

Andrea L Benin1, Grace Vitkauskas, Elizabeth Thornquist, Eugene D Shapiro, John Concato, Mihaela Aslan, Harlan M Krumholz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the validity of retrieving data from a commercial, outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) to assess the management of pharyngitis, an important measure of quality of healthcare in pediatrics and a new measure for the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS).
METHODS: For children ages 3-18 years, we electronically identified clinical encounters with diagnoses of pharyngitis using 3 different strategies (an EMR-based strategy, an administrative data-based strategy, and a reference strategy which used medical record review). By each strategy, we calculated the proportion of episodes of pharyngitis during 1 year for which management of pharyngitis adhered to published guidelines.
RESULTS: Among 479 total episodes of pharyngitis, 434 (91%) were from the EMR-based strategy and 281 (59%) from the administrative data-based strategy. Review of the records (the reference strategy) found that 391 of 479 (82%) were confirmed episodes of pharyngitis. A diagnostic test for group A streptococcus (GAS) was performed at 310 of 434 (71%) of episodes identified by the EMR-based strategy and at 214 of 281 (76%) of episodes by the administrative data-based strategy (P = 0.045). By the reference strategy, a diagnostic test was done in 301 of 391 (77%); more than at episodes found by the EMR-based strategy (71%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The EMR-based strategy resulted in a statistically different proportion of episodes having diagnostic testing for GAS compared with a reference strategy. Complete evaluations to validate strategies for extracting data from electronic databases are necessary before assuming that measures of quality of care will be the same regardless of the source of data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15970784     DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000167185.26058.8e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  14 in total

1.  Medical record review of deaths, unexpected intensive care unit admissions, and clinician referrals: detection of adverse events and insight into the system.

Authors:  K L Dunn; P Reddy; A Moulden; G Bowes
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-10-25       Impact factor: 3.791

2.  Validation of a system for quality improvement: preliminary data.

Authors:  Andrea L Benin; Harlan M Krumholz; Eugene D Shapiro; Cynthia Brandt
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2005

3.  Measuring performance directly using the veterans health administration electronic medical record: a comparison with external peer review.

Authors:  Joseph L Goulet; Joseph Erdos; Sue Kancir; Forrest L Levin; Steven M Wright; Stanlie M Daniels; Lynnette Nilan; Amy C Justice
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The Clinical Outcomes Assessment Toolkit: a framework to support automated clinical records-based outcomes assessment and performance measurement research.

Authors:  Leonard W D'Avolio; Alex A T Bui
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2008-02-28       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Using electronic medical records to measure and improve performance.

Authors:  Randall D Cebul
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  2008

6.  Identifying patients with hypertension: a case for auditing electronic health record data.

Authors:  Adam Baus; Michael Hendryx; Cecil Pollard
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2012-04-01

7.  Developing Methods of Repurposing Electronic Health Record Data for Identification of Older Adults at Risk of Unintentional Falls.

Authors:  Adam Baus; Keith Zullig; Dustin Long; Charles Mullett; Cecil Pollard; Henry Taylor; Jeffrey Coben
Journal:  Perspect Health Inf Manag       Date:  2016-04-01

8.  Comparison of methodologies for calculating quality measures based on administrative data versus clinical data from an electronic health record system: implications for performance measures.

Authors:  Paul C Tang; Mary Ralston; Michelle Fernandez Arrigotti; Lubna Qureshi; Justin Graham
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-10-26       Impact factor: 4.497

9.  Measuring Preventive Care Delivery: Comparing Rates Across Three Data Sources.

Authors:  Steffani R Bailey; John D Heintzman; Miguel Marino; Megan J Hoopes; Brigit A Hatch; Rachel Gold; Stuart C Cowburn; Christine A Nelson; Heather E Angier; Jennifer E DeVoe
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  William R Hersh; Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi; Judith R Logan; Philip R O Payne; Elmer V Bernstam; Harold P Lehmann; George Hripcsak; Timothy H Hartzog; James J Cimino; Joel H Saltz
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.