Quality of Hospital Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data Based on the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) in Heart Failure: Pilot Data Quality Assessment Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that health care providers need to focus attention, and be judged against, the impact they have on the health outcomes experienced by patients. The measurement of health outcomes as a routine part of clinical documentation is probably the only scalable way of collecting outcomes evidence, since secondary data collection is expensive and error-prone. However, there is uncertainty about whether routinely collected clinical data within electronic health record (EHR) systems includes the data most relevant to measuring and comparing outcomes and if those items are collected to a good enough data quality to be relied upon for outcomes assessment, since several studies have pointed out significant issues regarding EHR data availability and quality. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we first describe a practical approach to data quality assessment of health outcomes, based on a literature review of existing frameworks for quality assessment of health data and multistakeholder consultation. Adopting this approach, we performed a pilot study on a subset of 21 International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) outcomes data items from patients with congestive heart failure. METHODS: All available registries compatible with the diagnosis of heart failure within an EHR data repository of a general hospital (142,345 visits and 12,503 patients) were extracted and mapped to the ICHOM format. We focused our pilot assessment on 5 commonly used data quality dimensions: completeness, correctness, consistency, uniqueness, and temporal stability. RESULTS: We found high scores (>95%) for the consistency, completeness, and uniqueness dimensions. Temporal stability analyses showed some changes over time in the reported use of medication to treat heart failure, as well as in the recording of past medical conditions. Finally, the investigation of data correctness suggested several issues concerning the characterization of missing data values. Many of these issues appear to be introduced while mapping the IMASIS-2 relational database contents to the ICHOM format, as the latter requires a level of detail that is not explicitly available in the coded data of an EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results of this pilot study revealed good data quality for the subset of heart failure outcomes collected at the Hospital del Mar. Nevertheless, some important data errors were identified that were caused by fundamentally different data collection practices in routine clinical care versus research, for which the ICHOM standard set was originally developed. To truly examine to what extent hospitals today are able to routinely collect the evidence of their success in achieving good health outcomes, future research would benefit from performing more extensive data quality assessments, including all data items from the ICHOM standards set and across multiple hospitals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,179 | 0,254 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».