BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been identified as a key tool for quality improvement (QI) in health care. However, EHR data must be of sufficient quality to support QI efforts. In 2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began using a novel EHR tool-the CART Program-to support QI in cardiac catheterization laboratories. We evaluated whether data collected by the CART Program were of sufficient quality to support QI. METHODS: We evaluated the data validity, completeness, and timeliness of CART Program data using a random sample of 200 coronary procedures performed in 10 geographically diverse VA medical centers. RESULTS: Of 1690 observations in the CART Program data repository, 1664 (98.5%) were valid, as compared to the VA medical record. The CART Program reports were more complete than cardiac catheterization laboratory reports generated prior to CART Program implementation (79% vs. 63.1%, P < .001). Finally, there was a trend toward earlier availability of completed procedure reports to treating providers after CART Program implementation, with 75% of CART Program reports available within 1 day compared to 4 days for reports generated prior to CART Program implementation (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac catheterization reports generated by the VA's CART Program demonstrate excellent data validity, superior completeness, and a trend toward more timely availability to referring providers relative to cardiac catheterization laboratory reports generated prior to CART Program implementation. This demonstration of data quality is a key step in realizing CART Program's aim of supporting QI efforts in VA catheter laboratories.
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been identified as a key tool for quality improvement (QI) in health care. However, EHR data must be of sufficient quality to support QI efforts. In 2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began using a novel EHR tool-the CART Program-to support QI in cardiac catheterization laboratories. We evaluated whether data collected by the CART Program were of sufficient quality to support QI. METHODS: We evaluated the data validity, completeness, and timeliness of CART Program data using a random sample of 200 coronary procedures performed in 10 geographically diverse VA medical centers. RESULTS: Of 1690 observations in the CART Program data repository, 1664 (98.5%) were valid, as compared to the VA medical record. The CART Program reports were more complete than cardiac catheterization laboratory reports generated prior to CART Program implementation (79% vs. 63.1%, P < .001). Finally, there was a trend toward earlier availability of completed procedure reports to treating providers after CART Program implementation, with 75% of CART Program reports available within 1 day compared to 4 days for reports generated prior to CART Program implementation (P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac catheterization reports generated by the VA's CART Program demonstrate excellent data validity, superior completeness, and a trend toward more timely availability to referring providers relative to cardiac catheterization laboratory reports generated prior to CART Program implementation. This demonstration of data quality is a key step in realizing CART Program's aim of supporting QI efforts in VA catheter laboratories.
Authors: Thomas M Maddox; Maggie A Stanislawski; Gary K Grunwald; Steven M Bradley; P Michael Ho; Thomas T Tsai; Manesh R Patel; Amneet Sandhu; Javier Valle; David J Magid; Benjamin Leon; Deepak L Bhatt; Stephan D Fihn; John S Rumsfeld Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ateka Gunja; Maggie A Stanislawski; Anna E Barón; Thomas M Maddox; Steven M Bradley; Mladen I Vidovich Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Jason L Vassy; Yuk-Lam Ho; Jacqueline Honerlaw; Kelly Cho; J Michael Gaziano; Peter W F Wilson; David R Gagnon Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Alpha Oumar Diallo; Asha Krishnaswamy; Stuart K Shapira; Matthew E Oster; Mary G George; Jenna C Adams; Elizabeth R Walker; Paul Weiss; Mohammed K Ali; Wendy Book Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alexander Singer; Andrea L Kroeker; Sari Yakubovich; Roberto Duarte; Brenden Dufault; Alan Katz Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Geoffrey D Barnes; Maggie A Stanislawski; Wenhui Liu; Anna E Barón; Ehrin J Armstrong; P Michael Ho; Andrew Klein; Thomas M Maddox; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John S Rumsfeld; Thomas T Tsai; Steven M Bradley Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-05-31
Authors: Vikas Aggarwal; Ehrin J Armstrong; Wenhui Liu; Thomas M Maddox; P Michael Ho; Evan Carey; Tracy Wang; Matthew Sherwood; Thomas T Tsai; John S Rumsfeld; Steven M Bradley Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Taisei Kobayashi; Thomas J Glorioso; Ehrin J Armstrong; Thomas M Maddox; Mary E Plomondon; Gary K Grunwald; Steven M Bradley; Thomas T Tsai; Stephen W Waldo; Sunil V Rao; Subhash Banerjee; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Deepak L Bhatt; A Garvey Rene; Robert L Wilensky; Peter W Groeneveld; Jay Giri Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Sridharan Raghavan; Wenhui G Liu; P Michael Ho; Mary E Plomondon; Anna E Barón; Liron Caplan; Karen E Joynt Maddox; David Magid; David R Saxon; Corrine I Voils; Steven M Bradley; Thomas M Maddox Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 2.852