Zongyang Mou1, Amy M Sitapati, Mokhshan Ramachandran, Jay J Doucet, Amy E Liepert. 1. From the Department of Surgery (Z.M.) and Department of Medicine (A.M.S.), UC San Diego; and UC San Diego School of Medicine (M.R.) and Department of Surgery (J.J.D., A.E.L.), Division of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Burns and Acute Care Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite adoption of the emergency general surgery (EGS) service by hospitals nationally, quality improvement (QI) and research for this patient population are challenging because of the lack of population-specific registries. Past efforts have been limited by difficulties in identifying EGS patients within institutions and labor-intensive approaches to data capture. Thus, we created an automated electronic health record (EHR)-linked registry for EGS. METHODS: We built a registry within the Epic EHR at University of California San Diego for the EGS service. Existing EHR labels that identified patients seen by the EGS team were used to create our automated inclusion rules. Registry validation was performed using a retrospective cohort of EGS patients in a 30-month period and a 1-month prospective cohort. We created quality metrics that are updated and reported back to clinical teams in real time and obtained aggregate data to identify QI and research opportunities. A key metric tracked is clinic schedule rate, as we care that discontinuity postdischarge for the EGS population remains a challenge. RESULTS: Our registry captured 1,992 patient encounters with 1,717 unique patients in the 30-month period. It had a false-positive EGS detection rate of 1.8%. In our 1-month prospective cohort, it had a false-positive EGS detection rate of 0% and sensitivity of 85%. For quality metrics analysis, we found that EGS patients who were seen as consults had significantly lower clinic schedule rates on discharge compared with those who were admitted to the EGS service (85% vs. 60.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An EHR-linked EGS registry can reliably conduct capture data automatically and support QI and research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.
INTRODUCTION: Despite adoption of the emergency general surgery (EGS) service by hospitals nationally, quality improvement (QI) and research for this patient population are challenging because of the lack of population-specific registries. Past efforts have been limited by difficulties in identifying EGS patients within institutions and labor-intensive approaches to data capture. Thus, we created an automated electronic health record (EHR)-linked registry for EGS. METHODS: We built a registry within the Epic EHR at University of California San Diego for the EGS service. Existing EHR labels that identified patients seen by the EGS team were used to create our automated inclusion rules. Registry validation was performed using a retrospective cohort of EGS patients in a 30-month period and a 1-month prospective cohort. We created quality metrics that are updated and reported back to clinical teams in real time and obtained aggregate data to identify QI and research opportunities. A key metric tracked is clinic schedule rate, as we care that discontinuity postdischarge for the EGS population remains a challenge. RESULTS: Our registry captured 1,992 patient encounters with 1,717 unique patients in the 30-month period. It had a false-positive EGS detection rate of 1.8%. In our 1-month prospective cohort, it had a false-positive EGS detection rate of 0% and sensitivity of 85%. For quality metrics analysis, we found that EGS patients who were seen as consults had significantly lower clinic schedule rates on discharge compared with those who were admitted to the EGS service (85% vs. 60.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An EHR-linked EGS registry can reliably conduct capture data automatically and support QI and research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.
Authors: Joaquim M Havens; Pooja U Neiman; Braidie L Campbell; Martin A Croce; David A Spain; Lena M Napolitano Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Lauren E Matevish; Andrew J Medvecz; Joseph M Ebersole; Jonathan P Wanderer; Shannon C Eastham; Bradley M Dennis; Oscar D Guillamondegui Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Michael Bronsert; Abhinav B Singh; William G Henderson; Karl Hammermeister; Robert A Meguid; Kathryn L Colborn Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Robert D Becher; J Wayne Meredith; Michael C Chang; J Jason Hoth; H Randall Beard; Preston R Miller Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Joshua C Denny; Lisa Bastarache; Marylyn D Ritchie; Robert J Carroll; Raquel Zink; Jonathan D Mosley; Julie R Field; Jill M Pulley; Andrea H Ramirez; Erica Bowton; Melissa A Basford; David S Carrell; Peggy L Peissig; Abel N Kho; Jennifer A Pacheco; Luke V Rasmussen; David R Crosslin; Paul K Crane; Jyotishman Pathak; Suzette J Bielinski; Sarah A Pendergrass; Hua Xu; Lucia A Hindorff; Rongling Li; Teri A Manolio; Christopher G Chute; Rex L Chisholm; Eric B Larson; Gail P Jarvik; Murray H Brilliant; Catherine A McCarty; Iftikhar J Kullo; Jonathan L Haines; Dana C Crawford; Daniel R Masys; Dan M Roden Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Mallika L Mendu; Salman Ahmed; Jason K Maron; Sandhya K Rao; Sreekanth K Chaguturu; Megan F May; Walter P Mutter; Kelly A Burdge; David J R Steele; David B Mount; Sushrut S Waikar; Jeffrey B Weilburg; Thomas D Sequist Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Jihoon Kim; Larissa Neumann; Paulina Paul; Michele E Day; Michael Aratow; Douglas S Bell; Jason N Doctor; Ludwig C Hinske; Xiaoqian Jiang; Katherine K Kim; Michael E Matheny; Daniella Meeker; Mark J Pletcher; Lisa M Schilling; Spencer SooHoo; Hua Xu; Kai Zheng; Lucila Ohno-Machado Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 7.942