Literature DB >> 34587637

Examining the Concordance in the Documented Pressure Injury Site, Stage, and Count in Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III.

Wenhui Zhang1, Mani Sotoodeh2, Joyce C Ho2, Roy L Simpson1, Vicki S Hertzberg1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the concordance of pressure injury (PI) site, stage, and count documented in electronic health records (EHRs); explore if PI count during each patient hospitalization is consistent based on PI site or stage count in the diagnosis or chart event records; and examine if discrepancies in PI count were associated with patient characteristics.
METHODS: Hospitalization records with the International Classification of Diseases ninth edition (ICD-9) codes, chart events from two systems (CareVue, MetaVision), and clinical notes on PI were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-III database. PI site and stage counts from individual hospitalization were computed. Hospitalizations with the same or different counts of site and stage according to ICD-9 codes (site and stage), CareVue (site and stage), or MetaVision (stage) charts were defined as consistent or discrepant reporting. Chi-squared, independent t-, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were examined if the count discrepancy was associated with patient characteristics. ICD-9 codes and charts were also compared for people with one site or stage.
RESULTS: A total of 31,918 hospitalizations had PI data. Within hospitalizations with ICD-9-coded sites and stages, 55.9% reported different counts. Within hospitalizations with CareVue charts on PI, 99.3% reported the same count. For hospitalizations with stages based on ICD-9 codes or MetaVision chart data, only 42.9% reported the same count. Discrepancies in counts were consistently and significantly associated with variables including PI recording in clinical notes, dead/hospice at discharge, more caregivers, longer hospitalization or intensive care unit stays, and more days to first transfer. Discrepancies between ICD-9 code and chart values on the site and stage were also reported.
CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics associated with PI count discrepancies identified patients at risk of having discrepant PI counts or worse outcomes. PI documentation quality could be improved with better communication, care continuity, and integrity. Clinical research using EHRs should adopt systematic data quality analysis to inform limitations. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34587637      PMCID: PMC8481012          DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735179

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Predictive Validity of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Tools for Elderly: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Seong-Hi Park; Young-Shin Lee; Young-Mi Kwon
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 1.967

2.  Consistency of pressure injury documentation across interfacility transfers.

Authors:  Lee Squitieri; David A Ganz; Carol M Mangione; Jack Needleman; Patrick S Romano; Debra Saliba; Clifford Y Ko; Daniel A Waxman
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Accuracy, completeness and comprehensiveness of information on pressure ulcers recorded in the patient record.

Authors:  Asta Thoroddsen; Guðrún Sigurjónsdóttir; Margareta Ehnfors; Anna Ehrenberg
Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci       Date:  2012-05-28

4.  Pressure Ulcers in the United States' Inpatient Population From 2008 to 2012: Results of a Retrospective Nationwide Study.

Authors:  Karen Bauer; Kathryn Rock; Munier Nazzal; Olivia Jones; Weikai Qu
Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.629

5.  Pressure Ulcer Injury in Unstructured Clinical Notes: Detection and Interpretation.

Authors:  Mani Sotoodeh; Zelalem H Gero; Wenhui Zhang; Vicki Stover Hertzberg; Joyce C Ho
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2021-01-25

6.  Examination of the accuracy of coding hospital-acquired pressure ulcer stages.

Authors:  Nicole M Coomer; Nancy T McCall
Journal:  Medicare Medicaid Res Rev       Date:  2013-12-24

Review 7.  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

8.  A Data Quality Assessment Guideline for Electronic Health Record Data Reuse.

Authors:  Nicole G Weiskopf; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2017-09-04

9.  How to validate a diagnosis recorded in electronic health records.

Authors:  Francis Nissen; Jennifer K Quint; Daniel R Morales; Ian J Douglas
Journal:  Breathe (Sheff)       Date:  2019-03

10.  MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database.

Authors:  Alistair E W Johnson; Tom J Pollard; Lu Shen; Li-Wei H Lehman; Mengling Feng; Mohammad Ghassemi; Benjamin Moody; Peter Szolovits; Leo Anthony Celi; Roger G Mark
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 6.444

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.