OBJECTIVES: Electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic laboratory records (ELRs) are increasingly seen as a rich source of data for performing public health surveillance activities and monitoring community health status. Their potential for surveillance of chronic illness, however, may be underused. Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the use of EHRs and ELRs for diabetes surveillance in 2 California counties and (2) examine disparities in diabetes prevalence by geography, income, and race/ethnicity. METHODS: We obtained data on a clinical diagnosis of diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test results for adult members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California living in Contra Costa County or Solano County at any time during 2010-2014. We evaluated the validity of using HbA1c test results to determine diabetes prevalence, using clinical diagnoses as a gold standard. We estimated disparities in diabetes prevalence by combining HbA1c test results with US Census data on income, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: When compared with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes, data on a patient's 5-year maximum HbA1c value ≥6.5% yielded the best combination of sensitivity (87.4%) and specificity (99.2%). The prevalence of 5-year maximum HbA1c ≥6.5% decreased with increasing median family income and increased with greater proportions of residents who were either non-Hispanic black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Timely diabetes surveillance data from ELRs can be used to document disparities, target interventions, and evaluate changes in population health. ELR data may be easier to access than a patient's entire EHR, but outcome metric validation with diabetes diagnoses would need to be ongoing. Future research should validate ELR and EHR data across multiple providers.
OBJECTIVES: Electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic laboratory records (ELRs) are increasingly seen as a rich source of data for performing public health surveillance activities and monitoring community health status. Their potential for surveillance of chronic illness, however, may be underused. Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the use of EHRs and ELRs for diabetes surveillance in 2 California counties and (2) examine disparities in diabetes prevalence by geography, income, and race/ethnicity. METHODS: We obtained data on a clinical diagnosis of diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test results for adult members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California living in Contra Costa County or Solano County at any time during 2010-2014. We evaluated the validity of using HbA1c test results to determine diabetes prevalence, using clinical diagnoses as a gold standard. We estimated disparities in diabetes prevalence by combining HbA1c test results with US Census data on income, race, and ethnicity. RESULTS: When compared with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes, data on a patient's 5-year maximum HbA1c value ≥6.5% yielded the best combination of sensitivity (87.4%) and specificity (99.2%). The prevalence of 5-year maximum HbA1c ≥6.5% decreased with increasing median family income and increased with greater proportions of residents who were either non-Hispanic black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Timely diabetes surveillance data from ELRs can be used to document disparities, target interventions, and evaluate changes in population health. ELR data may be easier to access than a patient's entire EHR, but outcome metric validation with diabetes diagnoses would need to be ongoing. Future research should validate ELR and EHR data across multiple providers.
Entities:
Keywords:
diabetes; health information technology; public health surveillance
Authors: Howard H Moffet; Nancy Adler; Dean Schillinger; Ameena T Ahmed; Barbara Laraia; Joe V Selby; Romain Neugebauer; Jennifer Y Liu; Melissa M Parker; Margaret Warton; Andrew J Karter Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Brian S Schwartz; Walter F Stewart; Sarah Godby; Jonathan Pollak; Joseph Dewalle; Sharon Larson; Dione G Mercer; Thomas A Glass Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Andrew J Karter; Assiamira Ferrara; Jennifer Y Liu; Howard H Moffet; Lynn M Ackerson; Joe V Selby Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gregory A Nichols; Emily B Schroeder; Andrew J Karter; Edward W Gregg; Jay Desai; Jean M Lawrence; Patrick J O'Connor; Stanley Xu; Katherine M Newton; Marsha A Raebel; Ram D Pathak; Beth Waitzfelder; Jodi Segal; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Melissa G Butler; H Lester Kirchner; Abraham Thomas; John F Steiner Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mary Turyk; Henry Anderson; Lynda Knobeloch; Pamela Imm; Victoria Persky Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Andrew D Wiese; Christianne L Roumie; John B Buse; Herodes Guzman; Robert Bradford; Emily Zalimeni; Patricia Knoepp; Heather L Morris; William T Donahoo; Nada Fanous; Britany F Epstein; Bonnie L Katalenich; Sujata G Ayala; Megan M Cook; Katherine J Worley; Katherine N Bachmann; Carlos G Grijalva; Russell L Rothman; Rosette J Chakkalakal Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elizabeth Golembiewski; Katie S Allen; Amber M Blackmon; Rachel J Hinrichs; Joshua R Vest Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2019-10-07