Literature DB >> 24471935

Using computer-extracted data from electronic health records to measure the quality of adolescent well-care.

William Gardner1, Suzanne Morton, Sepheen C Byron, Aldo Tinoco, Benjamin D Canan, Karen Leonhart, Vivian Kong, Sarah Hudson Scholle.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether quality measures based on computer-extracted EHR data can reproduce findings based on data manually extracted by reviewers. DATA SOURCES: We studied 12 measures of care indicated for adolescent well-care visits for 597 patients in three pediatric health systems. STUDY
DESIGN: Observational study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
METHODS: Manual reviewers collected quality data from the EHR. Site personnel programmed their EHR systems to extract the same data from structured fields in the EHR according to national health IT standards. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: Overall performance measured via computer-extracted data was 21.9 percent, compared with 53.2 percent for manual data. Agreement measures were high for immunizations. Otherwise, agreement between computer extraction and manual review was modest (Kappa = 0.36) because computer-extracted data frequently missed care events (sensitivity = 39.5 percent). Measure validity varied by health care domain and setting. A limitation of our findings is that we studied only three domains and three sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of computer-extracted EHR quality reporting depends on the use of structured data fields, with the highest agreement found for measures and in the setting that had the greatest concentration of structured fields. We need to improve documentation of care, data extraction, and adaptation of EHR systems to practice workflow. © Health Research and Educational Trust.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Quality measurement; electronic health records; pediatric well-care

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24471935      PMCID: PMC4239847          DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  14 in total

1.  Automating care quality measurement with health information technology.

Authors:  Brian Hazelhurst; Mary Ann McBurnie; Richard A Mularski; Jon E Puro; Susan L Chauvie
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.229

2.  Comparison of administrative data and medical records to measure the quality of medical care provided to vulnerable older patients.

Authors:  Catherine H MacLean; Rachel Louie; Paul G Shekelle; Carol P Roth; Debra Saliba; Takahiro Higashi; John Adams; John T Chang; Caren J Kamberg; David H Solomon; Roy T Young; Neil S Wenger
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  Electronic medical records (EMRs), epidemiology, and epistemology: reflections on EMRs and future pediatric clinical research.

Authors:  Richard C Wasserman
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.107

4.  Comparison of methodologies for calculating quality measures based on administrative data versus clinical data from an electronic health record system: implications for performance measures.

Authors:  Paul C Tang; Mary Ralston; Michelle Fernandez Arrigotti; Lubna Qureshi; Justin Graham
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-10-26       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 5.  Assessing quality using administrative data.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1997-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Feasibility of evaluating the CHIPRA care quality measures in electronic health record data.

Authors:  Rachel Gold; Heather Angier; Rita Mangione-Smith; Charles Gallia; Patti J McIntire; Stuart Cowburn; Carrie Tillotson; Jennifer E DeVoe
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 7.124

7.  Assessing the validity of national quality measures for coronary artery disease using an electronic health record.

Authors:  Stephen D Persell; Jennifer M Wright; Jason A Thompson; Karen S Kmetik; David W Baker
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-11-13

8.  Automated review of electronic health records to assess quality of care for outpatients with heart failure.

Authors:  David W Baker; Stephen D Persell; Jason A Thompson; Neilesh S Soman; Karen M Burgner; David Liss; Karen S Kmetik
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Are performance measures based on automated medical records valid for physician/practice profiling of asthma care?

Authors:  Anne Fuhlbrigge; Vincent J Carey; Jonathan A Finkelstein; Paula Lozano; Thomas S Inui; Kevin B Weiss
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Using electronic health records to measure physician performance for acute conditions in primary care: empirical evaluation of the community-acquired pneumonia clinical quality measure set.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Linder; Erin O Kaleba; Karen S Kmetik
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  7 in total

1.  Statewide Hospital Discharge Data: Collection, Use, Limitations, and Improvements.

Authors:  Roxanne M Andrews
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Comparison of electronic versus manual abstraction for 2 standardized perinatal care measures.

Authors:  Stephen Schmaltz; Jocelyn Vaughn; Tricia Elliott
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 3.  A new era of quality measurement in rheumatology: electronic clinical quality measures and national registries.

Authors:  Chris Tonner; Gabriela Schmajuk; Jinoos Yazdany
Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.006

4.  Calculations of Financial Incentives for Providers in a Pay-for-Performance Program: Manual Review Versus Data From Structured Fields in Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Tracy H Urech; LeChauncy D Woodard; Salim S Virani; R Adams Dudley; Meghan Z Lutschg; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Comparison of Performance on ADHD Quality of Care Indicators: Practitioner Self-Report Versus Chart Review.

Authors:  Megan K Gordon; Rebecca A Baum; William Gardner; Kelly J Kelleher; Joshua M Langberg; William B Brinkman; Jeffery N Epstein
Journal:  J Atten Disord       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 3.256

6.  "Salt in the Wound": Safety Net Clinician Perspectives on Performance Feedback Derived From EHR Data.

Authors:  Arwen E Bunce; Rachel Gold; James V Davis; MaryBeth Mercer; Victoria Jaworski; Celine Hollombe; Christine Nelson
Journal:  J Ambul Care Manage       Date:  2017 Jan/Mar

7.  Using Clinical Data Standards to Measure Quality: A New Approach.

Authors:  John D D'Amore; Chun Li; Laura McCrary; Jonathan M Niloff; Dean F Sittig; Allison B McCoy; Adam Wright
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 2.342

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.