A data quality assessment to inform hypertension surveillance using primary care electronic medical record data from Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a common chronic condition affecting nearly a quarter of Canadians. Hypertension surveillance in Canada typically relies on administrative data and/or national surveys. Routinely-captured data from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) are a complementary source for chronic disease surveillance, with longitudinal patient-level details such as sociodemographics, blood pressure, weight, prescribed medications, and behavioural risk factors. As EMR data are generated from patient care and administrative tasks, assessing data quality is essential before using for secondary purposes. This study evaluated the quality of primary care EMR data from one province in Canada within the context of hypertension surveillance. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study using primary care EMR data collected by two practice-based research networks in Alberta, Canada. There were 48,377 adults identified with hypertension from 53 clinics as of June 2018. Summary statistics were used to examine the quality of data elements considered relevant for hypertension surveillance. RESULTS: Patient year of birth and sex were complete, but other sociodemographic information (ethnicity, occupation, education) was largely incomplete and highly variable. Height, weight, body mass index and blood pressure were complete for most patients (over 90%), but a small proportion of outlying values indicate data inaccuracies were present. Most patients had a relevant laboratory test present (e.g. blood glucose/glycated hemoglobin, lipid profile), though a very small proportion of values were outside a biologically plausible range. Details of prescribed antihypertensive medication, such as start date, strength, dose, frequency, were mostly complete. Nearly 80% of patients had a smoking status recorded, though only 66% had useful information (i.e. categorized as current, past, or never), and less than half had their alcohol use described; information related to amount, frequency or duration was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure and prescribed medications in primary care EMR data demonstrated good completeness and plausibility, and contribute valuable information for hypertension epidemiology and surveillance. The use of other clinical, laboratory, and sociodemographic variables should be used carefully due to variable completeness and suspected data errors. Additional strategies to improve these data at the point of entry and after data extraction (e.g. statistical methods) are required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".