Clare Liddy1, Miriam Wiens, William Hogg. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. cliddy@bruyere.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed interrater reliability (IRR) of chart abstractors within a randomized trial of cardiovascular care in primary care. We report our findings, and outline issues and provide recommendations related to determining sample size, frequency of verification, and minimum thresholds for 2 measures of IRR: the κ statistic and percent agreement. METHODS: We designed a data quality monitoring procedure having 4 parts: use of standardized protocols and forms, extensive training, continuous monitoring of IRR, and a quality improvement feedback mechanism. Four abstractors checked a 5% sample of charts at 3 time points for a predefined set of indicators of the quality of care. We set our quality threshold for IRR at a κ of 0.75, a percent agreement of 95%, or both. RESULTS:Abstractors reabstracted a sample of charts in 16 of 27 primary care practices, checking a total of 132 charts with 38 indicators per chart. The overall κ across all items was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.92) and the overall percent agreement was 94.3%, signifying excellent agreement between abstractors. We gave feedback to the abstractors to highlight items that had a κ of less than 0.70 or a percent agreement less than 95%. No practice had to have its charts abstracted again because of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: A 5% sampling of charts for quality control using IRR analysis yielded κ and agreement levels that met or exceeded our quality thresholds. Using 3 time points during the chart audit phase allows for early quality control as well as ongoing quality monitoring. Our results can be used as a guide and benchmark for other medical chart review studies in primary care.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We assessed interrater reliability (IRR) of chart abstractors within a randomized trial of cardiovascular care in primary care. We report our findings, and outline issues and provide recommendations related to determining sample size, frequency of verification, and minimum thresholds for 2 measures of IRR: the κ statistic and percent agreement. METHODS: We designed a data quality monitoring procedure having 4 parts: use of standardized protocols and forms, extensive training, continuous monitoring of IRR, and a quality improvement feedback mechanism. Four abstractors checked a 5% sample of charts at 3 time points for a predefined set of indicators of the quality of care. We set our quality threshold for IRR at a κ of 0.75, a percent agreement of 95%, or both. RESULTS: Abstractors reabstracted a sample of charts in 16 of 27 primary care practices, checking a total of 132 charts with 38 indicators per chart. The overall κ across all items was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.92) and the overall percent agreement was 94.3%, signifying excellent agreement between abstractors. We gave feedback to the abstractors to highlight items that had a κ of less than 0.70 or a percent agreement less than 95%. No practice had to have its charts abstracted again because of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: A 5% sampling of charts for quality control using IRR analysis yielded κ and agreement levels that met or exceeded our quality thresholds. Using 3 time points during the chart audit phase allows for early quality control as well as ongoing quality monitoring. Our results can be used as a guide and benchmark for other medical chart review studies in primary care.
Authors: Andrew Worster; R Daniel Bledsoe; Paul Cleve; Christopher M Fernandes; Suneel Upadhye; Kevin Eva Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: J Tobias Nagurney; David F M Brown; Swati Sane; Justin B Weiner; Andrew C Wang; Yuchiao Chang Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jennifer B Seaman; Anna C Evans; Andrea M Sciulli; Amber E Barnato; Susan M Sereika; Mary Beth Happ Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Courtney Lacey; Stephanie Scodras; Julie Ardron; Ryan Sellan; Martyna Garbaczewska; Kelly K O'Brien; Nancy M Salbach Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2018 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Brock Polnaszek; Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi; Melissa Hovanes; Rachel Roiland; Patrick Ferguson; Roger Brown; Amy J H Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.983