Literature DB >> 34348410

Linking Provider Specialty and Outpatient Diagnoses in Medicare Claims Data: Data Quality Implications.

Vojtech Huser1, Nick D Williams1, Craig S Mayer1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With increasing use of real world data in observational health care research, data quality assessment of these data is equally gaining in importance. Electronic health record (EHR) or claims datasets can differ significantly in the spectrum of care covered by the data.
OBJECTIVE: In our study, we link provider specialty with diagnoses (encoded in International Classification of Diseases) with a motivation to characterize data completeness.
METHODS: We develop a set of measures that determine diagnostic span of a specialty (how many distinct diagnosis codes are generated by a specialty) and specialty span of a diagnosis (how many specialties diagnose a given condition). We also analyze ranked lists for both measures. As use case, we apply these measures to outpatient Medicare claims data from 2016 (3.5 billion diagnosis-specialty pairs). We analyze 82 distinct specialties present in Medicare claims (using Medicare list of specialties derived from level III Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Codes).
RESULTS: A typical specialty diagnoses on average 4,046 distinct diagnosis codes. It can range from 33 codes for medical toxicology to 25,475 codes for internal medicine. Specialties with large visit volume tend to have large diagnostic span. Median specialty span of a diagnosis code is 8 specialties with a range from 1 to 82 specialties. In total, 13.5% of all observed diagnoses are generated exclusively by a single specialty. Quantitative cumulative rankings reveal that some diagnosis codes can be dominated by few specialties. Using such diagnoses in cohort or outcome definitions may thus be vulnerable to incomplete specialty coverage of a given dataset.
CONCLUSION: We propose specialty fingerprinting as a method to assess data completeness component of data quality. Datasets covering a full spectrum of care can be used to generate reference benchmark data that can quantify relative importance of a specialty in constructing diagnostic history elements of computable phenotype definitions. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34348410      PMCID: PMC8354353          DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Clin Inform        ISSN: 1869-0327            Impact factor:   2.762


  13 in total

1.  What Does It Take to Transform Real-World Data Into Real-World Evidence?

Authors:  Anuradha Ramamoorthy; Shiew-Mei Huang
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Impact of Electronic versus Paper-Based Recording before EHR Implementation on Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of EHR Use, Data Quality, and Data Reuse.

Authors:  Erik Joukes; Nicolette F de Keizer; Martine C de Bruijne; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Ronald Cornet
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-03-20       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Use of an electronic problem list by primary care providers and specialists.

Authors:  Adam Wright; Joshua Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Stanislav Henkin; David W Bates
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  JADE: a tool for medical researchers to explore adverse drug events using health claims data.

Authors:  D Edlinger; S K Sauter; C Rinner; L M Neuhofer; M Wolzt; W Grossmann; G Endel; W Gall
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  A method and knowledge base for automated inference of patient problems from structured data in an electronic medical record.

Authors:  Adam Wright; Justine Pang; Joshua C Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Allison R Wilcox; Harley Z Ramelson; Louise I Schneider; David W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-05-25       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  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

7.  Cost-effectiveness analyses using real-world data: an overview of the literature.

Authors:  Kevin Bowrin; Jean-Baptiste Briere; Pierre Levy; Aurélie Millier; Emilie Clay; Mondher Toumi
Journal:  J Med Econ       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 2.448

8.  A visual interface designed for novice users to find research patient cohorts in a large biomedical database.

Authors:  Shawn N Murphy; Vivian Gainer; Henry C Chueh
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

9.  A Method to Improve Availability and Quality of Patient Race Data in an Electronic Health Record System.

Authors:  Marika M Cusick; Evan T Sholle; Marcos A Davila; Joseph Kabariti; Curtis L Cole; Thomas R Campion
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 2.342

10.  A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Michael G Kahn; Tiffany J Callahan; Juliana Barnard; Alan E Bauck; Jeff Brown; Bruce N Davidson; Hossein Estiri; Carsten Goerg; Erin Holve; Steven G Johnson; Siaw-Teng Liaw; Marianne Hamilton-Lopez; Daniella Meeker; Toan C Ong; Patrick Ryan; Ning Shang; Nicole G Weiskopf; Chunhua Weng; Meredith N Zozus; Lisa Schilling
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2016-09-11
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Moving towards vertically integrated artificial intelligence development.

Authors:  Joe Zhang; Sanjay Budhdeo; Wasswa William; Paul Cerrato; Haris Shuaib; Harpreet Sood; Hutan Ashrafian; John Halamka; James T Teo
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2022-09-15
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.