Keiko Asao1, Laura N McEwen2, Joyce M Lee3, William H Herman4. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 66N. Pauline St., Ste. 633, Memphis, TN 38111, USA; Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Michigan, 1000 Wall St., Brehm Center Room 6111, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-5714, USA. Electronic address: kasao@uthsc.edu. 2. Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Michigan, 1000 Wall St., Brehm Center Room 6111, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-5714, USA. Electronic address: lmattei@med.umich.edu. 3. Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, The University of Michigan, 300 North Ingalls St., Room 6E18, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5456, USA. Electronic address: joyclee@med.umich.edu. 4. Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Michigan, 1000 Wall St., Brehm Center Room 6111, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-5714, USA; Department of Epidemiology, The University of Michigan, 1000 Wall St., Brehm Center Room 6108, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-5714, USA. Electronic address: wherman@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
AIMS: To estimate and evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of providers' diagnosis codes and medication lists to identify outpatient visits by patients with diabetes. METHODS: We used data from the 2006 to 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of providers' diagnoses and medication lists to identify patients with diabetes, using the checkbox for diabetes as the gold standard. We then examined differences in sensitivity by patients' characteristics using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: The checkbox identified 12,647 outpatient visits by adults with diabetes among the 70,352 visits used for this analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of providers' diagnoses or listed diabetes medications were 72.3% (95% CI: 70.8% to 73.8%) and 99.2% (99.1% to 99.4%), respectively. Diabetic patients ≥75 years of age, women, non-Hispanics, and those with private insurance or Medicare were more likely to be missed by providers' diagnoses and medication lists. Diabetic patients who had more diagnosis codes and medications recorded, had glucose or hemoglobin A1c measured, or made office- rather than hospital-outpatient visits were less likely to be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' diagnosis codes and medication lists fail to identify approximately one quarter of outpatient visits by patients with diabetes.
AIMS: To estimate and evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of providers' diagnosis codes and medication lists to identify outpatient visits by patients with diabetes. METHODS: We used data from the 2006 to 2010 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of providers' diagnoses and medication lists to identify patients with diabetes, using the checkbox for diabetes as the gold standard. We then examined differences in sensitivity by patients' characteristics using multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: The checkbox identified 12,647 outpatient visits by adults with diabetes among the 70,352 visits used for this analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of providers' diagnoses or listed diabetes medications were 72.3% (95% CI: 70.8% to 73.8%) and 99.2% (99.1% to 99.4%), respectively. Diabeticpatients ≥75 years of age, women, non-Hispanics, and those with private insurance or Medicare were more likely to be missed by providers' diagnoses and medication lists. Diabeticpatients who had more diagnosis codes and medications recorded, had glucose or hemoglobin A1c measured, or made office- rather than hospital-outpatient visits were less likely to be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Providers' diagnosis codes and medication lists fail to identify approximately one quarter of outpatient visits by patients with diabetes.
Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus; Diagnosis codes; Medications; Sensitivity; The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS); The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS)
Authors: Keiko Asao; James Kaminski; Laura N McEwen; Xiejian Wu; Joyce M Lee; William H Herman Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Catherine C Cowie; Keith F Rust; Danita D Byrd-Holt; Edward W Gregg; Earl S Ford; Linda S Geiss; Kathleen E Bainbridge; Judith E Fradkin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Laura N McEwen; Andrew J Karter; J David Curb; David G Marrero; Jesse C Crosson; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Leslie W Suen; Anil N Makam; Hannah R Snyder; Daniel Repplinger; Margot B Kushel; Marlene Martin; Oanh Kieu Nguyen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Scott J Pilla; Jodi B Segal; G Caleb Alexander; Cynthia M Boyd; Nisa M Maruthur Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lindsay Fernández-Rhodes; Julia B Ward; Chantel L Martin; Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri; Jacqueline Torres; Penny Gordon-Larsen; Mary N Haan; Allison E Aiello Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Alfonso C Hernandez-Romieu; Shikha Garg; Eli S Rosenberg; Angela M Thompson-Paul; Jacek Skarbinski Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2017-01-05
Authors: Carlos Irwin A Oronce; A Mark Fendrick; Joseph A Ladapo; Catherine Sarkisian; John N Mafi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 5.128