OBJECTIVE: To refine the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI) and test the validity and reliability of the 9-item version (PDQI-9). METHODS: Three sets each of admission notes, progress notes and discharge summaries were evaluated by two groups of physicians using the PDQI-9 and an overall general assessment: one gold standard group consisting of program or assistant program directors (n=7), and the other of attending physicians or chief residents (n=24). The main measures were criterion-related validity (correlation coefficients between Total PDQI-9 scores and 1-item General Impression scores for each note), discriminant validity (comparison of PDQI-9 scores on notes rated as best and worst using 1-item General Impression score), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)). RESULTS: The results were criterion-related validity (r = -.678 to .856), discriminant validity (best versus worst note, t = 9.3, p = .003), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas = .87-.94), and inter-rater reliability (ICC = .83, CI = .72-.91). CONCLUSION: The results support the criterion-related and discriminant validity, internal consistency reliability, and inter-rater reliability of the PDQI-9 for rating the quality of electronic physician notes. Tools for assessing note redundancy are required to complement use of PDQI-9. Trials of the PDQI-9 at other institutions, of different size, using different EHRs, and incorporating additional physician specialties and notes of other healthcare providers are needed to confirm its generalizability.
OBJECTIVE: To refine the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI) and test the validity and reliability of the 9-item version (PDQI-9). METHODS: Three sets each of admission notes, progress notes and discharge summaries were evaluated by two groups of physicians using the PDQI-9 and an overall general assessment: one gold standard group consisting of program or assistant program directors (n=7), and the other of attending physicians or chief residents (n=24). The main measures were criterion-related validity (correlation coefficients between Total PDQI-9 scores and 1-item General Impression scores for each note), discriminant validity (comparison of PDQI-9 scores on notes rated as best and worst using 1-item General Impression score), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)). RESULTS: The results were criterion-related validity (r = -.678 to .856), discriminant validity (best versus worst note, t = 9.3, p = .003), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas = .87-.94), and inter-rater reliability (ICC = .83, CI = .72-.91). CONCLUSION: The results support the criterion-related and discriminant validity, internal consistency reliability, and inter-rater reliability of the PDQI-9 for rating the quality of electronic physician notes. Tools for assessing note redundancy are required to complement use of PDQI-9. Trials of the PDQI-9 at other institutions, of different size, using different EHRs, and incorporating additional physician specialties and notes of other healthcare providers are needed to confirm its generalizability.
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; Stefan B Heinze; Clair L Shadbolt; Lawrence H Schwartz; Michelle S Ginsberg; Robert A Lefkowitz; Susan Hilton; Kevin Conlon; Steven Leibel; Alan Tumbull; David M Panicek Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Reed Gelzer; Terri Hall; Elizabeth Liette; Mary G Reeves; Jennifer Sundby; Anne Tegen; Diana Warner; Lou Ann Wiedemann; Kelly McCormick Journal: J AHIMA Date: 2009-01
Authors: Rubina F Rizvi; Kathleen A Harder; Gretchen M Hultman; Terrence J Adam; Michael Kim; Serguei V S Pakhomov; Genevieve B Melton Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Natalie Wiebe; Lucia Otero Varela; Daniel J Niven; Paul E Ronksley; Nicolas Iragorri; Hude Quan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kevin J Lybarger; Mari Ostendorf; Eve Riskin; Thomas H Payne; Andrew A White; Meliha Yetisgen Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: P M Neri; L A Volk; S Samaha; S E Pollard; D H Williams; J M Fiskio; E Burdick; S T Edwards; H Ramelson; G D Schiff; D W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Raj Mehta; Nila S Radhakrishnan; Carrie D Warring; Ankur Jain; Jorge Fuentes; Angela Dolganiuc; Laura S Lourdes; John Busigin; Robert R Leverence Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 2.342