Literature DB >> 17101947

Assessing the validity of national quality measures for coronary artery disease using an electronic health record.

Stephen D Persell1, Jennifer M Wright, Jason A Thompson, Karen S Kmetik, David W Baker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nationally endorsed, clinical performance measures are available that allow for quality reporting using electronic health records (EHRs). To our knowledge, how well they reflect actual quality of care has not been studied. We sought to evaluate the validity of performance measures for coronary artery disease (CAD) using an ambulatory EHR.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective electronic medical chart review comparing automated measurement with a 2-step process of automated measurement supplemented by review of free-text notes for apparent quality failures for all patients with CAD from a large internal medicine practice using a commercial EHR. The 7 performance measures included the following: antiplatelet drug, lipid-lowering drug, beta-blocker following myocardial infarction, blood pressure measurement, lipid measurement, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker for patients with diabetes mellitus or left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
RESULTS: Performance varied from 81.6% for lipid measurement to 97.6% for blood pressure measurement based on automated measurement. A review of free-text notes for cases failing an automated measure revealed that misclassification was common and that 15% to 81% of apparent quality failures either satisfied the performance measure or met valid exclusion criteria. After including free-text data, the adherence rate ranged from 87.5% for lipid measurement and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control to 99.2% for blood pressure measurement.
CONCLUSIONS: Profiling the quality of outpatient CAD care using data from an EHR has significant limitations. Changes in how data are routinely recorded in an EHR are needed to improve the accuracy of this type of quality measurement. Validity testing in different settings is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17101947     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.20.2272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  34 in total

1.  From simply inaccurate to complex and inaccurate: complexity in standards-based quality measures.

Authors:  David A Dorr; Aaron M Cohen; Marsha Pierre-Jacques Williams; John Hurdle
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

2.  Cardiovascular epidemiology in a changing world--challenges to investigators and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Authors:  Paul D Sorlie; Diane E Bild; Michael S Lauer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Extracting cancer quality indicators from electronic medical records: evaluation of an ontology-based virtual medical record approach.

Authors:  Wei-Nchih Lee; Samson W Tu; Amar K Das
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2009-11-14

4.  An unsupervised machine learning approach to segmentation of clinician-entered free text.

Authors:  Jesse O Wrenn; Peter D Stetson; Stephen B Johnson
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2007-10-11

5.  The impact of electronic medical records data sources on an adverse drug event quality measure.

Authors:  Michael G Kahn; Daksha Ranade
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Discrepancy Between Identification of Early-Term Elective Deliveries by Manual Chart Review and Data Vendor.

Authors:  Kelly Yamasato; Pai-Jong Stacy Tsai; Marguerite Bartholomew; Marsha Durbin; Chieko Kimata; Bliss Kaneshiro
Journal:  Hawaii J Med Public Health       Date:  2016-12

7.  Validation of Stroke Meaningful Use Measures in a National Electronic Health Record System.

Authors:  Michael S Phipps; Jeff Fahner; Danielle Sager; Jessica Coffing; Bailey Maryfield; Linda S Williams
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  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

9.  Physician reminders to promote surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal adenomas: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  John Z Ayanian; Thomas D Sequist; Alan M Zaslavsky; Richard S Johannes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Methods to identify the target population: implications for prescribing quality indicators.

Authors:  Liana Martirosyan; Onyebuchi A Arah; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Jozé Braspenning; Petra Denig
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.