Literature DB >> 20889074

The use of databases and registries to enhance colonoscopy quality.

Judith R Logan1, David A Lieberman.   

Abstract

Administrative databases, registries, and clinical databases are designed for different purposes and therefore have different advantages and disadvantages in providing data for enhancing quality. Administrative databases provide the advantages of size, availability, and generalizability, but are subject to constraints inherent in the coding systems used and from data collection methods optimized for billing. Registries are designed for research and quality reporting but require significant investment from participants for secondary data collection and quality control. Electronic health records contain all of the data needed for quality research and measurement, but that data is too often locked in narrative text and unavailable for analysis. National mandates for electronic health record implementation and functionality will likely change this landscape in the near future.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20889074     DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2010.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am        ISSN: 1052-5157


  8 in total

1.  Quality indicators in colonoscopy practice.

Authors:  Irving M Pike
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2012-03

Review 2.  Quality in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Katherine T Brunner; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-10

3.  Validation of 5 key colonoscopy-related data elements from Ontario health administrative databases compared to the clinical record: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Jill Tinmouth; Rinku Sutradhar; Ning Liu; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2018-08-13

4.  Matching colonoscopy and pathology data in population-based registries: development of a novel algorithm and the initial experience of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Mary Ann Greene; Lynn F Butterly; Martha Goodrich; Tracy Onega; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Allen J Dietrich; Amitabh Srivastava
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-06-12       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 5.  Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation.

Authors:  Audrey H Calderwood; Brian C Jacobson
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.806

6.  Validation of administrative data sources for endoscopy utilization in colorectal cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Xue Li; Robert Hilsden; Shakhawat Hossain; John Fleming; Marcy Winget
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-10-13       Impact factor: 2.655

7.  Depiction of Trends in Administrative Healthcare Data from Hospital Information System.

Authors:  Leila R Kalankesh; Faramarz Pourasghar; Mohammad Asghari Jafarabadi; Negar Khanehdan
Journal:  Mater Sociomed       Date:  2015-06-08

Review 8.  A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.

Authors:  Robyn S Sharma; Peter G Rossos
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-04-26
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.