Pashiera Barkhuysen1, Wim de Grauw1, Reinier Akkermans2, José Donkers1, Henk Schers1, Marion Biermans1. 1. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre (RUNMC), Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Primary and Community Care/Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre (RUNMC), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quality indicators for the treatment of type 2 diabetes are often retrieved from a chronic disease registry (CDR). This study investigates the quality of recording in a general practitioner's (GP) electronic medical record (EMR) compared to a simple, web-based CDR. METHODS: The GPs entered data directly in the CDR and in their own EMR during the study period (2011). We extracted data from 58 general practices (8235 patients) with type 2 diabetes and compared the occurrence and value of seven process indicators and 12 outcome indicators in both systems. The CDR, specifically designed for monitoring type 2 diabetes and reporting to health insurers, was used as the reference standard. For process indicators we examined the presence or absence of recordings on the patient level in both systems, for outcome indicators we examined the number of compliant or non-compliant values of recordings present in both systems. The diagnostic OR (DOR) was calculated for all indicators. RESULTS: We found less concordance for process indicators than for outcome indicators. HbA1c testing was the process indicator with the highest DOR. Blood pressure measurement, urine albumin test, BMI recorded and eye assessment showed low DOR. For outcome indicators, the highest DOR was creatinine clearance <30 mL/min or mL/min/1.73 m(2) and the lowest DOR was systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical items are not always adequately recorded in an EMR for retrieving indicators, but there is good concordance for the values of these items. If the quality of recording improves, indicators can be reported from the EMR, which will reduce the workload of GPs and enable GPs to maintain a good patient overview. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: Quality indicators for the treatment of type 2 diabetes are often retrieved from a chronic disease registry (CDR). This study investigates the quality of recording in a general practitioner's (GP) electronic medical record (EMR) compared to a simple, web-based CDR. METHODS: The GPs entered data directly in the CDR and in their own EMR during the study period (2011). We extracted data from 58 general practices (8235 patients) with type 2 diabetes and compared the occurrence and value of seven process indicators and 12 outcome indicators in both systems. The CDR, specifically designed for monitoring type 2 diabetes and reporting to health insurers, was used as the reference standard. For process indicators we examined the presence or absence of recordings on the patient level in both systems, for outcome indicators we examined the number of compliant or non-compliant values of recordings present in both systems. The diagnostic OR (DOR) was calculated for all indicators. RESULTS: We found less concordance for process indicators than for outcome indicators. HbA1c testing was the process indicator with the highest DOR. Blood pressure measurement, urine albumin test, BMI recorded and eye assessment showed low DOR. For outcome indicators, the highest DOR was creatinine clearance <30 mL/min or mL/min/1.73 m(2) and the lowest DOR was systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical items are not always adequately recorded in an EMR for retrieving indicators, but there is good concordance for the values of these items. If the quality of recording improves, indicators can be reported from the EMR, which will reduce the workload of GPs and enable GPs to maintain a good patient overview. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data Quality; Electronic Medical Record; Quality Indicators; Quality of Care; Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Apostolos Tsiachristas; Bethany Hipple-Walters; Karin M M Lemmens; Anna P Nieboer; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken Journal: Health Policy Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Julie Schmittdiel; Thomas Bodenheimer; Neil A Solomon; Robin R Gillies; Stephen M Shortell Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael S Phipps; Jeff Fahner; Danielle Sager; Jessica Coffing; Bailey Maryfield; Linda S Williams Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ivo K Joore; Denise E Twisk; Ann M Vanrolleghem; Maria de Ridder; Suzanne E Geerlings; Jan E A M van Bergen; Ingrid V van den Broek Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Jelle C L Himmelreich; Wim A M Lucassen; Ralf E Harskamp; Claire Aussems; Henk C P M van Weert; Mark M J Nielen Journal: Open Heart Date: 2021-01
Authors: Philomena Ngugi; Ankica Babic; James Kariuki; Xenophon Santas; Violet Naanyu; Martin C Were Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240