Literature DB >> 33596898

Temporal relationship of computed and structured diagnoses in electronic health record data.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computational phenotypes; Electronic health records; Observational studies; Real-world data

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33596898      PMCID: PMC7890604          DOI: 10.1186/s12911-021-01416-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak        ISSN: 1472-6947            Impact factor:   2.796


  38 in total

1.  Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership.

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

2.  Toward reuse of clinical data for research and quality improvement: the end of the beginning?

Authors:  Mark G Weiner; Peter J Embi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  An administrative claims measure suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day all-cause readmission rates among patients with acute myocardial infarction.

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

4.  Healthcare provider attitudes towards the problem list in an electronic health record: a mixed-methods qualitative study.

Authors:  Casey Holmes; Michael Brown; Daniel St Hilaire; Adam Wright
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-11-11       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 5.  Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research.

Authors:  Nicole Gray Weiskopf; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-06-25       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Hypertension in Florida: Data From the OneFlorida Clinical Data Research Network.

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

7.  Health Care and Precision Medicine Research: Analysis of a Scalable Data Science Platform.

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

8.  Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence.

Authors:  C M Booth; I F Tannock
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Biases in electronic health record data due to processes within the healthcare system: retrospective observational study.

Authors:  Denis Agniel; Isaac S Kohane; Griffin M Weber
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-04-30

10.  The Use of Clinical Registries in the United States: A Landscape Survey.

Authors:  Seth Blumenthal
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2017-12-07
View more
  4 in total

1.  Comparing ascertainment of chronic condition status with problem lists versus encounter diagnoses from electronic health records.

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

2.  Accuracy of Computable Phenotyping Approaches for SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Hospitalizations from the Electronic Health Record.

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

3.  Comparing reliability of ICD-10-based COVID-19 comorbidity data to manual chart review, a retrospective cross-sectional study.

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

4.  A multicenter evaluation of computable phenotyping approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalizations.

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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.