Steffani R Bailey1, John D Heintzman2, Miguel Marino3, Megan J Hoopes4, Brigit A Hatch5, Rachel Gold6, Stuart C Cowburn4, Christine A Nelson4, Heather E Angier2, Jennifer E DeVoe5. 1. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: bailstef@ohsu.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 3. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Division of Biostatistics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 4. OCHIN, Inc., Portland, Oregon. 5. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; OCHIN, Inc., Portland, Oregon. 6. OCHIN, Inc., Portland, Oregon; Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preventive care delivery is an important quality outcome, and electronic data reports are being used increasingly to track these services. It is highly informative when electronic data sources are compared to information manually extracted from medical charts to assess validity and completeness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a random sample of Medicaid-insured patients seen at 43 community health centers in 2011 to calculate standard measures of correspondence between manual chart review and two automated sources (electronic health records [EHRs] and Medicaid claims), comparing documentation of orders for and receipt of ten preventive services (n=150 patients/service). Data were analyzed in 2015. RESULTS: Using manual chart review as the gold standard, automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect to perfect agreement (κ=0.96-1.0) for services received within the primary care setting (e.g., BMI, blood pressure). Receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screenings, services commonly referred out, showed moderate (κ=0.42) to substantial (κ=0.62) agreement, respectively. Automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect agreement (κ=0.83-0.97) for documentation of ordered services. Medicaid claims showed near-perfect agreement (κ=0.87) for hyperlipidemia and diabetes screening, and substantial agreement (κ=0.67-0.80) for receipt of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings, and influenza vaccination. Claims showed moderate agreement (κ=0.59) for chlamydia screening receipt. Medicaid claims did not capture ordered or unbilled services. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that automated EHR and claims data provide valid sources for measuring receipt of most preventive services; however, ordered and unbilled services were primarily captured via EHR data and completed referrals were more often documented in claims data.
INTRODUCTION: Preventive care delivery is an important quality outcome, and electronic data reports are being used increasingly to track these services. It is highly informative when electronic data sources are compared to information manually extracted from medical charts to assess validity and completeness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a random sample of Medicaid-insured patients seen at 43 community health centers in 2011 to calculate standard measures of correspondence between manual chart review and two automated sources (electronic health records [EHRs] and Medicaid claims), comparing documentation of orders for and receipt of ten preventive services (n=150 patients/service). Data were analyzed in 2015. RESULTS: Using manual chart review as the gold standard, automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect to perfect agreement (κ=0.96-1.0) for services received within the primary care setting (e.g., BMI, blood pressure). Receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screenings, services commonly referred out, showed moderate (κ=0.42) to substantial (κ=0.62) agreement, respectively. Automated EHR extraction showed near-perfect agreement (κ=0.83-0.97) for documentation of ordered services. Medicaid claims showed near-perfect agreement (κ=0.87) for hyperlipidemia and diabetes screening, and substantial agreement (κ=0.67-0.80) for receipt of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings, and influenza vaccination. Claims showed moderate agreement (κ=0.59) for chlamydia screening receipt. Medicaid claims did not capture ordered or unbilled services. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that automated EHR and claims data provide valid sources for measuring receipt of most preventive services; however, ordered and unbilled services were primarily captured via EHR data and completed referrals were more often documented in claims data.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Lisa M Kern; Yolanda Barrón; Rina V Dhopeshwarkar; Alison Edwards; Rainu Kaushal Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer E Devoe; Rachel Gold; Patti McIntire; Jon Puro; Susan Chauvie; Charles A Gallia Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Jennifer E Devoe; Rachel Gold; Mark Spofford; Susan Chauvie; John Muench; Ann Turner; Sonja Likumahuwa; Christine Nelson Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
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
Authors: Marc B Rosenman; Guoyu Tao; Kinga A Szucs; Jianhong Wang; Roberta Ambuehl; Barbara E Mahon Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Brigit A Hatch; Carrie J Tillotson; Nathalie Huguet; Megan J Hoopes; Miguel Marino; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Robert W Voss; Teresa D Schmidt; Nicole Weiskopf; Miguel Marino; David A Dorr; Nathalie Huguet; Nate Warren; Steele Valenzuela; Jean O'Malley; Ana R Quiñones Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Maria A Ukhanova; Carrie J Tillotson; Miguel Marino; Nathalie Huguet; Ana R Quiñones; Brigit A Hatch; Teresa Schmidt; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Blair G Darney; Frances M Biel; Maria I Rodriguez; R Lorie Jacob; Erika K Cottrell; Jennifer E DeVoe Journal: Med Care Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Cynthia I Campbell; Amber L Bahorik; Paul VanVeldhuisen; Constance Weisner; Andrea L Rubinstein; G Thomas Ray Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 4.018