Literature DB >> 35165743

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

Robert W Voss1, Teresa D Schmidt1, Nicole Weiskopf2, Miguel Marino3, David A Dorr2, Nathalie Huguet3, Nate Warren1, Steele Valenzuela3, Jean O'Malley1, Ana R Quiñones3,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare electronic health record (EHR) documentation of chronic disease in problem lists and encounter diagnosis records among Community Health Center (CHC) patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed patient EHR data in a large clinical research network during 2012-2019. We included CHCs who provided outpatient, older adult primary care to patients age ≥45 years, with ≥2 office visits during the study. Our study sample included 1 180 290 patients from 545 CHCs across 22 states. We used diagnosis codes from 39 Chronic Condition Warehouse algorithms to identify chronic conditions from encounter diagnoses only and compared against problem list records. We measured correspondence including agreement, kappa, prevalence index, bias index, and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa.
RESULTS: Overlap of encounter diagnosis and problem list ascertainment was 59.4% among chronic conditions identified, with 12.2% of conditions identified only in encounters and 28.4% identified only in problem lists. Rates of coidentification varied by condition from 7.1% to 84.4%. Greatest agreement was found in diabetes (84.4%), HIV (78.1%), and hypertension (74.7%). Sixteen conditions had <50% agreement, including cancers and substance use disorders. Overlap for mental health conditions ranged from 47.4% for anxiety to 59.8% for depression. DISCUSSION: Agreement between the 2 sources varied substantially. Conditions requiring regular management in primary care settings may have a higher agreement than those diagnosed and treated in specialty care.
CONCLUSION: Relying on EHR encounter data to identify chronic conditions without reference to patient problem lists may under-capture conditions among CHC patients in the United States.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chronic disease ascertainment; community health centers (CHC); concordance; electronic health records (EHR); multimorbidity

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35165743      PMCID: PMC9006679          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  44 in total

1.  The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain.

Authors:  E S Fisher; F S Whaley; W M Krushat; D J Malenka; C Fleming; J A Baron; D C Hsia
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Using Self-reports or Claims to Assess Disease Prevalence: It's Complicated.

Authors:  Patricia St Clair; Étienne Gaudette; Henu Zhao; Bryan Tysinger; Roxanna Seyedin; Dana P Goldman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Identification of validated case definitions for medical conditions used in primary care electronic medical record databases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kerry A McBrien; Sepideh Souri; Nicola E Symonds; Azin Rouhi; Brendan C Lethebe; Tyler S Williamson; Stephanie Garies; Richard Birtwhistle; Hude Quan; Gabriel E Fabreau; Paul E Ronksley
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Agreement of Medicaid claims and electronic health records for assessing preventive care quality among adults.

Authors:  John Heintzman; Steffani R Bailey; Megan J Hoopes; Thuy Le; Rachel Gold; Jean P O'Malley; Stuart Cowburn; Miguel Marino; Alex Krist; Jennifer E DeVoe
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Comparison of EHR-based diagnosis documentation locations to a gold standard for risk stratification in patients with multiple chronic conditions.

Authors:  Shelby Martin; Jesse Wagner; Nicoleta Lupulescu-Mann; Katrina Ramsey; Aaron Cohen; Peter Graven; Nicole G Weiskopf; David A Dorr
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.342

6.  Measuring Preventive Care Delivery: Comparing Rates Across Three Data Sources.

Authors:  Steffani R Bailey; John D Heintzman; Miguel Marino; Megan J Hoopes; Brigit A Hatch; Rachel Gold; Stuart C Cowburn; Christine A Nelson; Heather E Angier; Jennifer E DeVoe
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Measuring Multimorbidity: Selecting the Right Instrument for the Purpose and the Data Source.

Authors:  Jerry Suls; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jay Berry; Arlene S Bierman; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Tilda Farhat; Martin Fortin; Siran M Koroukian; Ana Quinones; Jeffrey H Silber; Brian W Ward; Melissa Wei; Deborah Young-Hyman; Carrie N Klabunde
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 3.178

8.  Measuring agreement of administrative data with chart data using prevalence unadjusted and adjusted kappa.

Authors:  Guanmin Chen; Peter Faris; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Robin L Walker; Hude Quan
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Automated Diabetes Case Identification Using Electronic Health Record Data at a Tertiary Care Facility.

Authors:  Sudhi G Upadhyaya; Dennis H Murphree; Che G Ngufor; Alison M Knight; Daniel J Cronk; Robert R Cima; Timothy B Curry; Jyotishman Pathak; Rickey E Carter; Daryl J Kor
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes       Date:  2017-04-28

Review 10.  Comprehensive review of ICD-9 code accuracies to measure multimorbidity in administrative data.

Authors:  Melissa Y Wei; Jamie E Luster; Chiao-Li Chan; Lillian Min
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  1 in total

1.  What can you do with an electronic health record?

Authors:  Suzanne Bakken
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 4.497

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.