Zayd Tippu1, Ana Correa2, Harshana Liyanage3, David Burleigh4, Andrew McGovern5, Jeremy Van Vlymen6, Simon Jones7, Simon De Lusignan8. 1. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. zayd.tippu@doctors.org.uk. 2. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. a.correa@surrey.ac.uk. 3. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. h.s.liyanage@surrey.ac.uk. 4. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. d.burleigh@surrey.ac.uk. 5. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. andy@mcgov.co.uk. 6. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. j.vanvlymen@surrey.ac.uk. 7. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. simonjones@surrey.ac.uk. 8. Section of Clinical Medicine and Aging, University of Surrey, Guildford. s.lusignan@surrey.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethnicity recording within primary care computerised medical record (CMR) systems is suboptimal, exacerbated by tangled taxonomies within current coding systems.Objective To develop a method for extending ethnicity identification using routinely collected data. METHODS: We used an ontological method to maximise the reliability and prevalence of ethnicity information in the Royal College of General Practitioner's Research and Surveillance database. Clinical codes were either directly mapped to ethnicity group or utilised as proxy markers (such as language spoken) from which ethnicity could be inferred. We compared the performance of our method with the recording rates that would be identified by code lists utilised by the UK pay for the performance system, with the help of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). RESULTS: Data from 2,059,453 patients across 110 practices were included. The overall categorisable ethnicity using QOF codes was 36.26% (95% confidence interval (CI): 36.20%-36.33%). This rose to 48.57% (CI:48.50%-48.64%) using the described ethnicity mapping process. Mapping increased across all ethnic groups. The largest increase was seen in the white ethnicity category (30.61%; CI: 30.55%-30.67% to 40.24%; CI: 40.17%-40.30%). The highest relative increase was in the ethnic group categorised as the other (0.04%; CI: 0.03%-0.04% to 0.92%; CI: 0.91%-0.93%). CONCLUSIONS: This mapping method substantially increases the prevalence of known ethnicity in CMR data and may aid future epidemiological research based on routine data.
BACKGROUND: Ethnicity recording within primary care computerised medical record (CMR) systems is suboptimal, exacerbated by tangled taxonomies within current coding systems.Objective To develop a method for extending ethnicity identification using routinely collected data. METHODS: We used an ontological method to maximise the reliability and prevalence of ethnicity information in the Royal College of General Practitioner's Research and Surveillance database. Clinical codes were either directly mapped to ethnicity group or utilised as proxy markers (such as language spoken) from which ethnicity could be inferred. We compared the performance of our method with the recording rates that would be identified by code lists utilised by the UK pay for the performance system, with the help of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). RESULTS: Data from 2,059,453 patients across 110 practices were included. The overall categorisable ethnicity using QOF codes was 36.26% (95% confidence interval (CI): 36.20%-36.33%). This rose to 48.57% (CI:48.50%-48.64%) using the described ethnicity mapping process. Mapping increased across all ethnic groups. The largest increase was seen in the white ethnicity category (30.61%; CI: 30.55%-30.67% to 40.24%; CI: 40.17%-40.30%). The highest relative increase was in the ethnic group categorised as the other (0.04%; CI: 0.03%-0.04% to 0.92%; CI: 0.91%-0.93%). CONCLUSIONS: This mapping method substantially increases the prevalence of known ethnicity in CMR data and may aid future epidemiological research based on routine data.
Entities:
Keywords:
Epidemiology; Ethnic Group; Primary Health Care
Authors: Mekha Mathew; Jeremy van Vlymen; Bernardo Meza-Torres; William Hinton; Gayathri Delanerolle; Ivelina Yonova; Michael Feher; Xuejuan Fan; Harshana Liyanage; Mark Joy; Fabrizio Carinci; Simon de Lusignan Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-04-22
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Emmanouela Konstantara; Mark Joy; Julian Sherlock; Uy Hoang; Rachel Coyle; Filipa Ferreira; Simon Jones; Sarah J O'Brien Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: William Hinton; Andrew McGovern; Rachel Coyle; Thang S Han; Pankaj Sharma; Ana Correa; Filipa Ferreira; Simon de Lusignan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: M Harries; A E Macbeth; S Holmes; W S Chiu; W R Gallardo; M Nijher; S de Lusignan; C Tziotzios; A G Messenger Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 11.113
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Ana Correa; Richard Pebody; Ivelina Yonova; Gillian Smith; Rachel Byford; Sameera Rankiri Pathirannehelage; Christopher McGee; Alex J Elliot; Mariya Hriskova; Filipa Im Ferreira; Imran Rafi; Simon Jones Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2018-04-30
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Mark Joy; Jason Oke; Dylan McGagh; Brian Nicholson; James Sheppard; Oluwafunmi Akinyemi; Gayatri Amirthalingam; Kevin Brown; Rachel Byford; Gavin Dabrera; Else Krajenbrink; Harshana Liyanage; Jamie LopezBernal; Cecilia Okusi; Mary Ramsay; Julian Sherlock; Mary Sinnathamby; Ruby S M Tsang; Victoria Tzortziou Brown; John Williams; Maria Zambon; Filipa Ferreira; Gary Howsam; F D Richard Hobbs Journal: J Infect Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 6.072
Authors: Simon de Lusignan; Helen Alexander; Conor Broderick; John Dennis; Andrew McGovern; Claire Feeney; Carsten Flohr Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Martin B Whyte; William Hinton; Andrew McGovern; Jeremy van Vlymen; Filipa Ferreira; Silvio Calderara; Julie Mount; Neil Munro; Simon de Lusignan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 11.069