Literature DB >> 29241241

Quantifying the Effect of Data Quality on the Validity of an eMeasure.

Steven G Johnson1, Stuart Speedie1, Gyorgy Simon1, Vipin Kumar2, Bonnie L Westra1,3.   

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to demonstrate the utility of a healthcare data quality framework by using it to measure the impact of synthetic data quality issues on the validity of an eMeasure (CMS178—urinary catheter removal after surgery). Methods Data quality issues were artificially created by systematically degrading the underlying quality of EHR data using two methods: independent and correlated degradation. A linear model that describes the change in the events included in the eMeasure quantifies the impact of each data quality issue. Results Catheter duration had the most impact on the CMS178 eMeasure with every 1% reduction in data quality causing a 1.21% increase in the number of missing events. For birth date and admission type, every 1% reduction in data quality resulted in a 1% increase in missing events. Conclusion This research demonstrated that the impact of data quality issues can be quantified using a generalized process and that the CMS178 eMeasure, as currently defined, may not measure how well an organization is meeting the intended best practice goal. Secondary use of EHR data is warranted only if the data are of sufficient quality. The assessment approach described in this study demonstrates how the impact of data quality issues on an eMeasure can be quantified and the approach can be generalized for other data analysis tasks. Healthcare organizations can prioritize data quality improvement efforts to focus on the areas that will have the most impact on validity and assess whether the values that are reported should be trusted.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29241241      PMCID: PMC5802305          DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2017-03-RA-0042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Clin Inform        ISSN: 1869-0327            Impact factor:   2.342


  20 in total

1.  Translational and clinical science--time for a new vision.

Authors:  Elias A Zerhouni
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-12       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  The concept of validity.

Authors:  Denny Borsboom; Gideon J Mellenbergh; Jaap van Heerden
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Launching HITECH.

Authors:  David Blumenthal
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records.

Authors:  W R Hogan; M M Wagner
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Completeness, accuracy, and computability of National Quality Forum-specified eMeasures.

Authors:  Andy Amster; Joseph Jentzsch; Ham Pasupuleti; K G Subramanian
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 6.  Clinical Data Reuse or Secondary Use: Current Status and Potential Future Progress.

Authors:  S M Meystre; C Lovis; T Bürkle; G Tognola; A Budrionis; C U Lehmann
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2017-09-11

7.  Application of An Ontology for Characterizing Data Quality For a Secondary Use of EHR Data.

Authors:  Steven G Johnson; Stuart Speedie; Gyorgy Simon; Vipin Kumar; Bonnie L Westra
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 2.342

8.  A Data Quality Ontology for the Secondary Use of EHR Data.

Authors:  Steven G Johnson; Stuart Speedie; Gyorgy Simon; Vipin Kumar; Bonnie L Westra
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2015-11-05

9.  Assessing the validity of national quality measures for coronary artery disease using an electronic health record.

Authors:  Stephen D Persell; Jennifer M Wright; Jason A Thompson; Karen S Kmetik; David W Baker
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2006-11-13

10.  Achieving the Promise of Electronic Health Record-enabled Quality Measurement: a Measure Developer's Perspective.

Authors:  Phyllis Torda; Aldo Tinoco
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2013-10-28
View more
  7 in total

1.  A Rule-Based Data Quality Assessment System for Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Zhan Wang; John R Talburt; Ningning Wu; Serhan Dagtas; Meredith Nahm Zozus
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 2.342

2.  Utility of an Electronic Health Record Report to Identify Patients with Delays in Testing for Poorly Controlled Diabetes.

Authors:  Jessica L Schwartz; Daisy Duan; Nisa M Maruthur; Samantha I Pitts
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2022-04-02

3.  Generating and Reporting Electronic Clinical Quality Measures from Electronic Health Records: Strategies from EvidenceNOW Cooperatives.

Authors:  Joshua E Richardson; Luke V Rasmussen; David A Dorr; Jenna T Sirkin; Donna Shelley; Adovich Rivera; Winfred Wu; Samuel Cykert; Deborah J Cohen; Abel N Kho
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 2.762

4.  Igniting Harmonized Digital Clinical Quality Measurement through Terminology, CQL, and FHIR.

Authors:  Robert C McClure; Caroline L Macumber; Julia L Skapik; Anne Marie Smith
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Drug repositioning candidates identified using in-silico quasi-quantum molecular simulation demonstrate reduced COVID-19 mortality in 1.5M patient records.

Authors:  Joy Alamgir; Masanao Yajima; Rosa Ergas; Xinci Chen; Nicholas Hill; Naved Munir; Mohsan Saeed; Ken Gersing; Melissa Haendel; Christopher G Chute; M Ruhul Abid
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2021-04-06

Review 6.  Application of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies in the Healthcare Industry: Opportunities and Challenges.

Authors:  DonHee Lee; Seong No Yoon
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Using Clinical Data Standards to Measure Quality: A New Approach.

Authors:  John D D'Amore; Chun Li; Laura McCrary; Jonathan M Niloff; Dean F Sittig; Allison B McCoy; Adam Wright
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 2.342

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.