OBJECTIVE: Ambiguous definitions of quality measures in natural language impede their automated computability and also the reproducibility, validity, timeliness, traceability, comparability, and interpretability of computed results. Therefore, quality measures should be formalized before their release. We have previously developed and successfully applied a method for clinical indicator formalization (CLIF). The objective of our present study is to test whether CLIF is generalizable--that is, applicable to a large set of heterogeneous measures of different types and from various domains. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formalized the entire set of 159 Dutch quality measures for general practice, which contains structure, process, and outcome measures and covers seven domains. We relied on a web-based tool to facilitate the application of our method. Subsequently, we computed the measures on the basis of a large database of real patient data. RESULTS: Our CLIF method enabled us to fully formalize 100% of the measures. Owing to missing functionality, the accompanying tool could support full formalization of only 86% of the quality measures into Structured Query Language (SQL) queries. The remaining 14% of the measures required manual application of our CLIF method by directly translating the respective criteria into SQL. The results obtained by computing the measures show a strong correlation with results computed independently by two other parties. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIF method covers all quality measures after having been extended by an additional step. Our web tool requires further refinement for CLIF to be applied completely automatically. We therefore conclude that CLIF is sufficiently generalizable to be able to formalize the entire set of Dutch quality measures for general practice.
OBJECTIVE: Ambiguous definitions of quality measures in natural language impede their automated computability and also the reproducibility, validity, timeliness, traceability, comparability, and interpretability of computed results. Therefore, quality measures should be formalized before their release. We have previously developed and successfully applied a method for clinical indicator formalization (CLIF). The objective of our present study is to test whether CLIF is generalizable--that is, applicable to a large set of heterogeneous measures of different types and from various domains. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We formalized the entire set of 159 Dutch quality measures for general practice, which contains structure, process, and outcome measures and covers seven domains. We relied on a web-based tool to facilitate the application of our method. Subsequently, we computed the measures on the basis of a large database of real patient data. RESULTS: Our CLIF method enabled us to fully formalize 100% of the measures. Owing to missing functionality, the accompanying tool could support full formalization of only 86% of the quality measures into Structured Query Language (SQL) queries. The remaining 14% of the measures required manual application of our CLIF method by directly translating the respective criteria into SQL. The results obtained by computing the measures show a strong correlation with results computed independently by two other parties. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIF method covers all quality measures after having been extended by an additional step. Our web tool requires further refinement for CLIF to be applied completely automatically. We therefore conclude that CLIF is sufficiently generalizable to be able to formalize the entire set of Dutch quality measures for general practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
EMR-driven Phenotyping; Electronic Medical Record; Identification of Patient Cohorts; Quality Indicators; Quality Measures; Secondary Use of Patient Data
Authors: Mike Conway; Richard L Berg; David Carrell; Joshua C Denny; Abel N Kho; Iftikhar J Kullo; James G Linneman; Jennifer A Pacheco; Peggy Peissig; Luke Rasmussen; Noah Weston; Christopher G Chute; Jyotishman Pathak Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2011-10-22
Authors: Samson W Tu; Mor Peleg; Simona Carini; Michael Bobak; Jessica Ross; Daniel Rubin; Ida Sim Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Diederick E Grobbee; Arno W Hoes; Theo J M Verheij; Augustinus J P Schrijvers; Erik J C van Ameijden; Mattijs E Numans Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2005 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Stephanie Medlock; Dedan Opondo; Saeid Eslami; Marjan Askari; Peter Wierenga; Sophia E de Rooij; Ameen Abu-Hanna Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: William K Thompson; Luke V Rasmussen; Jennifer A Pacheco; Peggy L Peissig; Joshua C Denny; Abel N Kho; Aaron Miller; Jyotishman Pathak Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2012-11-03
Authors: Kathrin Dentler; Ronald Cornet; Annette Ten Teije; Kristien Tytgat; Jean Klinkenbujl; Nicolette De Keizer Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2012
Authors: P J Scott; M Rigby; E Ammenwerth; J Brender McNair; A Georgiou; H Hyppönen; N de Keizer; F Magrabi; P Nykänen; W T Gude; W Hackl Journal: Yearb Med Inform Date: 2017-09-11