Wade L Schulz1,2, H Patrick Young2,3, Andreas Coppi2,3, Bobak J Mortazavi2,3,4,5, Zhenqiu Lin2, Raymond A Jean2,6, Harlan M Krumholz7,8,9. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 2. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 5. Center for Remote Health Technologies and Systems, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 7. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA. harlan.krumholz@yale.edu. 8. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. harlan.krumholz@yale.edu. 9. Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. harlan.krumholz@yale.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) holds the prospect of providing more complete and timely access to clinical information for biomedical research, quality assessments, and quality improvement compared to other data sources, such as administrative claims. In this study, we sought to assess the completeness and timeliness of structured diagnoses in the EHR compared to computed diagnoses for hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), and diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We determined the amount of time for a structured diagnosis to be recorded in the EHR from when an equivalent diagnosis could be computed from other structured data elements, such as vital signs and laboratory results. We used EHR data for encounters from January 1, 2012 through February 10, 2019 from an academic health system. Diagnoses for HTN, HLD, and DM were computed for patients with at least two observations above threshold separated by at least 30 days, where the thresholds were outpatient blood pressure of ≥ 140/90 mmHg, any low-density lipoprotein ≥ 130 mg/dl, or any hemoglobin A1c ≥ 6.5%, respectively. The primary measure was the length of time between the computed diagnosis and the time at which a structured diagnosis could be identified within the EHR history or problem list. RESULTS: We found that 39.8% of those with HTN, 21.6% with HLD, and 5.2% with DM did not receive a corresponding structured diagnosis recorded in the EHR. For those who received a structured diagnosis, a mean of 389, 198, and 166 days elapsed before the patient had the corresponding diagnosis of HTN, HLD, or DM, respectively, recorded in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: We found a marked temporal delay between when a diagnosis can be computed or inferred and when an equivalent structured diagnosis is recorded within the EHR. These findings demonstrate the continued need for additional study of the EHR to avoid bias when using observational data and reinforce the need for computational approaches to identify clinical phenotypes.
BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) holds the prospect of providing more complete and timely access to clinical information for biomedical research, quality assessments, and quality improvement compared to other data sources, such as administrative claims. In this study, we sought to assess the completeness and timeliness of structured diagnoses in the EHR compared to computed diagnoses for hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), and diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We determined the amount of time for a structured diagnosis to be recorded in the EHR from when an equivalent diagnosis could be computed from other structured data elements, such as vital signs and laboratory results. We used EHR data for encounters from January 1, 2012 through February 10, 2019 from an academic health system. Diagnoses for HTN, HLD, and DM were computed for patients with at least two observations above threshold separated by at least 30 days, where the thresholds were outpatient blood pressure of ≥ 140/90 mmHg, any low-density lipoprotein ≥ 130 mg/dl, or any hemoglobin A1c ≥ 6.5%, respectively. The primary measure was the length of time between the computed diagnosis and the time at which a structured diagnosis could be identified within the EHR history or problem list. RESULTS: We found that 39.8% of those with HTN, 21.6% with HLD, and 5.2% with DM did not receive a corresponding structured diagnosis recorded in the EHR. For those who received a structured diagnosis, a mean of 389, 198, and 166 days elapsed before the patient had the corresponding diagnosis of HTN, HLD, or DM, respectively, recorded in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: We found a marked temporal delay between when a diagnosis can be computed or inferred and when an equivalent structured diagnosis is recorded within the EHR. These findings demonstrate the continued need for additional study of the EHR to avoid bias when using observational data and reinforce the need for computational approaches to identify clinical phenotypes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computational phenotypes; Electronic health records; Observational studies; Real-world data
Authors: Patrick B Ryan; David Madigan; Paul E Stang; J Marc Overhage; Judith A Racoosin; Abraham G Hartzema Journal: Stat Med Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Zhenqiu Lin; Elizabeth E Drye; Mayur M Desai; Lein F Han; Michael T Rapp; Jennifer A Mattera; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-03
Authors: Steven M Smith; Kathryn McAuliffe; Jaclyn M Hall; Caitrin W McDonough; Matthew J Gurka; Temple O Robinson; Ralph L Sacco; Carl Pepine; Elizabeth Shenkman; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jacob McPadden; Thomas Js Durant; Dustin R Bunch; Andreas Coppi; Nathaniel Price; Kris Rodgerson; Charles J Torre; William Byron; Allen L Hsiao; Harlan M Krumholz; Wade L Schulz Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 5.428
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: Rohan Khera; Bobak J Mortazavi; Benjamin D Pollock; Wade L Schulz; Veer Sangha; Frederick Warner; H Patrick Young; Joseph S Ross; Nilay D Shah; Elitza S Theel; William G Jenkinson; Camille Knepper; Karen Wang; David Peaper; Richard A Martinello; Cynthia A Brandt; Zhenqiu Lin; Albert I Ko; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: medRxiv Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Joseph W Schaefer; Joshua M Riley; Michael Li; Dianna R Cheney-Peters; Chantel M Venkataraman; Chris J Li; Christa M Smaltz; Conor G Bradley; Crystal Y Lee; Danielle M Fitzpatrick; David B Ney; Dina S Zaret; Divya M Chalikonda; Joshua D Mairose; Kashyap Chauhan; Margaret V Szot; Robert B Jones; Rukaiya Bashir-Hamidu; Shuji Mitsuhashi; Alan A Kubey Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 20.693
Authors: Rohan Khera; Bobak J Mortazavi; Veer Sangha; Frederick Warner; H Patrick Young; Joseph S Ross; Nilay D Shah; Elitza S Theel; William G Jenkinson; Camille Knepper; Karen Wang; David Peaper; Richard A Martinello; Cynthia A Brandt; Zhenqiu Lin; Albert I Ko; Harlan M Krumholz; Benjamin D Pollock; Wade L Schulz Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2022-03-08