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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.179 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".