OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare case ascertainment, agreement, validity, and missing values for clinical research data obtained, processed, and linked electronically from electronic health records (EHR) compared to "manual" data processing and record abstraction in a cohort of out-of-hospital trauma patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of two sets of data collected for a prospective, population-based, out-of-hospital trauma cohort evaluated by 10 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies transporting to 16 hospitals, from January 1, 2006, through October 2, 2007. Eighteen clinical, operational, procedural, and outcome variables were collected and processed separately and independently using two parallel data processing strategies by personnel blinded to patients in the other group. The electronic approach included EHR data exports from EMS agencies, reformatting, and probabilistic linkage to outcomes from local trauma registries and state discharge databases. The manual data processing approach included chart matching, data abstraction, and data entry by a trained abstractor. Descriptive statistics, measures of agreement, and validity were used to compare the two approaches to data processing. RESULTS: During the 21-month period, 418 patients underwent both data processing methods and formed the primary cohort. Agreement was good to excellent (kappa = 0.76 to 0.97; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49 to 0.97), with exact agreement in 67% to 99% of cases and a median difference of zero for all continuous and ordinal variables. The proportions of missing out-of-hospital values were similar between the two approaches, although electronic processing generated more missing outcomes (87 of 418, 21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 25%) than the manual approach (11 of 418, 3%, 95% CI = 1% to 5%). Case ascertainment of eligible injured patients was greater using electronic methods (n = 3,008) compared to manual methods (n = 629). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of out-of-hospital trauma patients, an all-electronic data processing strategy identified more patients and generated values with good agreement and validity compared to traditional data collection and processing methods.
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare case ascertainment, agreement, validity, and missing values for clinical research data obtained, processed, and linked electronically from electronic health records (EHR) compared to "manual" data processing and record abstraction in a cohort of out-of-hospital traumapatients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of two sets of data collected for a prospective, population-based, out-of-hospital trauma cohort evaluated by 10 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies transporting to 16 hospitals, from January 1, 2006, through October 2, 2007. Eighteen clinical, operational, procedural, and outcome variables were collected and processed separately and independently using two parallel data processing strategies by personnel blinded to patients in the other group. The electronic approach included EHR data exports from EMS agencies, reformatting, and probabilistic linkage to outcomes from local trauma registries and state discharge databases. The manual data processing approach included chart matching, data abstraction, and data entry by a trained abstractor. Descriptive statistics, measures of agreement, and validity were used to compare the two approaches to data processing. RESULTS: During the 21-month period, 418 patients underwent both data processing methods and formed the primary cohort. Agreement was good to excellent (kappa = 0.76 to 0.97; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.49 to 0.97), with exact agreement in 67% to 99% of cases and a median difference of zero for all continuous and ordinal variables. The proportions of missing out-of-hospital values were similar between the two approaches, although electronic processing generated more missing outcomes (87 of 418, 21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 25%) than the manual approach (11 of 418, 3%, 95% CI = 1% to 5%). Case ascertainment of eligible injured patients was greater using electronic methods (n = 3,008) compared to manual methods (n = 629). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of out-of-hospital traumapatients, an all-electronic data processing strategy identified more patients and generated values with good agreement and validity compared to traditional data collection and processing methods.
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Nathan Kuppermann; James F Holmes; Jason S Haukoos; Brian Wetzel; Renee Y Hsia; N Ewen Wang; Eileen M Bulger; Kristan Staudenmayer; N Clay Mann; Erik D Barton; Garen Wintemute Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Rongwei Fu; Eileen Bulger; Jerris R Hedges; N Clay Mann; Dagan A Wright; David P Lehrfeld; Carol Shields; Gregory Hoskins; Craig Warden; Lynn Wittwer; Jennifer N B Cook; Michael Verkest; William Conway; Stephanie Somerville; Matthew Hansen Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Kristan Staudenmayer; Renee Y Hsia; N Clay Mann; Eileen M Bulger; James F Holmes; Ross Fleischman; Kyle Gorman; Jason Haukoos; K John McConnell Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Craig D Newgard; Rongwei Fu; Dana Zive; Tom Rea; Susan Malveau; Mohamud Daya; Jonathan Jui; Denise E Griffiths; Lynn Wittwer; Ritu Sahni; K Dean Gubler; Jonathan Chin; Pat Klotz; Stephanie Somerville; Tina Beeler; T J Bishop; Tara N Garland; Eileen Bulger Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Alan E Greenberg; Harlen Hays; Amanda D Castel; Thilakavathy Subramanian; Lindsey Powers Happ; Maria Jaurretche; Jeff Binkley; Mariah M Kalmin; Kathy Wood; Rachel Hart Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Dana E Kozubal; Quincy M Samus; Aishat A Bakare; Carrilin C Trecker; Hei-Wah Wong; Huiying Guo; Jeffrey Cheng; Paul X Allen; Lawrence S Mayer; Kay R Jamison; Adam I Kaplin Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Michael A Puskarich; Clif Callaway; Robert Silbergleit; Jesse M Pines; Ziad Obermeyer; David W Wright; Renee Y Hsia; Manish N Shah; Andrew A Monte; Alexander T Limkakeng; Zachary F Meisel; Phillip D Levy Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.451