OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a variety of electronic medical record (EMR) search algorithms to allow clinicians to accurately identify their patients with asthma in order to enable improved care. DESIGN: A retrospective chart analysis identified 5 relevant unique EMR information fields (electronic disease registry, cumulative patient profile, billing diagnostic code, medications, and chart notes); asthma-related search terms were designated for each field. The accuracy of each term was tested for its ability to identify the asthma patients among all patients whose charts were reviewed. Increasingly sophisticated search algorithms were then designed and evaluated by serially combining individual searches with Boolean operators. SETTING: Two large academic primary care clinics in Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Charts for 600 randomly selected patients aged 16 years and older identified in an initial EMR search as likely having asthma (n = 150), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 150), other respiratory conditions (n = 150), or nonrespiratory conditions (n = 150) were reviewed until 100 patients per category were identified (or until all available names were exhausted). A total of 398 charts were reviewed in full and included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of each search for asthma diagnosis (against the reference standard of a physician chart review-based diagnosis). RESULTS: Two physicians reviewed the charts identified in the initial EMR search using a standardized data collection form and ascribed the following diagnoses in 398 patients: 112 (28.1%) had asthma, 81 (20.4%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 104 (26.1%) had other respiratory conditions, and 101 (25.4%) had nonrespiratory conditions. Concordance between reviewers in chart abstraction diagnosis was high (κ = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97). Overall, the algorithm searching for patients who had asthma in their cumulative patient profiles or for whom an asthma billing code had been used was the most accurate (sensitivity of 90.2%, 95% CI 87.3% to 93.1%; specificity of 83.9%, 95% CI 80.3% to 87.5%). CONCLUSION: Usable, practical search algorithms that accurately identify patients with asthma in existing EMRs are presented. Clinicians can apply 1 of these algorithms to generate asthma registries for targeted quality improvement initiatives and outcome measurements. This methodology can be emulated for other diseases.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a variety of electronic medical record (EMR) search algorithms to allow clinicians to accurately identify their patients with asthma in order to enable improved care. DESIGN: A retrospective chart analysis identified 5 relevant unique EMR information fields (electronic disease registry, cumulative patient profile, billing diagnostic code, medications, and chart notes); asthma-related search terms were designated for each field. The accuracy of each term was tested for its ability to identify the asthmapatients among all patients whose charts were reviewed. Increasingly sophisticated search algorithms were then designed and evaluated by serially combining individual searches with Boolean operators. SETTING: Two large academic primary care clinics in Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Charts for 600 randomly selected patients aged 16 years and older identified in an initial EMR search as likely having asthma (n = 150), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 150), other respiratory conditions (n = 150), or nonrespiratory conditions (n = 150) were reviewed until 100 patients per category were identified (or until all available names were exhausted). A total of 398 charts were reviewed in full and included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of each search for asthma diagnosis (against the reference standard of a physician chart review-based diagnosis). RESULTS: Two physicians reviewed the charts identified in the initial EMR search using a standardized data collection form and ascribed the following diagnoses in 398 patients: 112 (28.1%) had asthma, 81 (20.4%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 104 (26.1%) had other respiratory conditions, and 101 (25.4%) had nonrespiratory conditions. Concordance between reviewers in chart abstraction diagnosis was high (κ = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97). Overall, the algorithm searching for patients who had asthma in their cumulative patient profiles or for whom an asthma billing code had been used was the most accurate (sensitivity of 90.2%, 95% CI 87.3% to 93.1%; specificity of 83.9%, 95% CI 80.3% to 87.5%). CONCLUSION: Usable, practical search algorithms that accurately identify patients with asthma in existing EMRs are presented. Clinicians can apply 1 of these algorithms to generate asthma registries for targeted quality improvement initiatives and outcome measurements. This methodology can be emulated for other diseases.
Authors: J Mark FitzGerald; Louis-Philipe Boulet; R Andrew McIvor; Sabrina Zimmerman; Kenneth R Chapman Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Teresa To; Sharon Dell; Paul T Dick; Lisa Cicutto; Jennifer K Harris; Ian B MacLusky; Marjan Tassoudji Journal: Pediatr Allergy Immunol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.377
Authors: Andrea S Gershon; Chengning Wang; Jun Guan; Jovonka Vasilevska-Ristovska; Lisa Cicutto; Teresa To Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Gabriele Di Lorenzo; Pasquale Mansueto; Maria Esposito-Pellitteri; Vito Ditta; Francesco Castello; Claudia Lo Bianco; Maria Stefania Leto-Barone; Gaetana Di Fede; Marcello Traverso; Giuseppe Rotolo; Sergio Vigneri; Giovambattista Rini Journal: Respir Med Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Helena Klomp; Joshua A Lawson; Donald W Cockcroft; Benjamin T Chan; Paul Cascagnette; Laurie Gander; Derek Jorgenson Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Jane Rebecca Smith; Michael J Noble; Stanley Musgrave; Jamie Murdoch; Gill M Price; Garry R Barton; Jennifer Windley; Richard Holland; Brian Dw Harrison; Amanda Howe; David B Price; Ian Harvey; Andrew M Wilson Journal: Thorax Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Jessica R White; Vjollca Berisha; Kathryn Lane; Henri Ménager; Aaron Gettel; Carol R Braun Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Katherine N Cahill; Christina B Johns; Jing Cui; Paige Wickner; David W Bates; Tanya M Laidlaw; Patrick E Beeler Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Shannon M Christy; Richard R Reich; Julie A Rathwell; Susan T Vadaparampil; Kimberly A Isaacs-Soriano; Mark S Friedman; Richard G Roetzheim; Anna R Giuliano Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Andrew J Cave; Christina Davey; Elaheh Ahmadi; Neil Drummond; Sonia Fuentes; Seyyed Mohammad Reza Kazemi-Bajestani; Heather Sharpe; Matt Taylor Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 2.871
Authors: Francis Nissen; Jennifer K Quint; Samantha Wilkinson; Hana Mullerova; Liam Smeeth; Ian J Douglas Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Francis Nissen; Jennifer K Quint; Samantha Wilkinson; Hana Mullerova; Liam Smeeth; Ian J Douglas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-05-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Francis Nissen; Daniel R Morales; Hana Mullerova; Liam Smeeth; Ian J Douglas; Jennifer K Quint Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mindy K Ross; Henry Zheng; Bing Zhu; Ailina Lao; Hyejin Hong; Alamelu Natesan; Melina Radparvar; Alex A T Bui Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 1.800