Data integrity in a general practice computer system (CLINICS)

The Heimdall Framework for Supporting Characterisation of Learning Health Systems

BACKGROUND

Learning Health Systems (LHS) can focus population medicine and Evidence Based Practice; smart technology delivering the next generation of improved healthcare described as Precision Medicine, and yet researchers in the LHS domain presently lack the ability to recognise their relevant works as falling within this domain.

OBJECTIVE

To review LHS literature and develop a framework describing the domain that can be used as a tool to analyse the literature and support researchers to identify health informatics investigations as falling with the domain of LHS.

METHOD

A scoping review is used to identify literature on which analysis was performed. This resolved the ontology and framework. The ontology was applied to quantify the distribution of classifications of LHS solutions. The framework was used to analyse and characterise the various works within the body of LHS literature.

RESULTS

The ontology and framework developed was shown to be easily applicable to the literature, consistently describing and representing the goals, intentions and solutions of each LHS investigation in the literature. More proposed or potential solutions are described in the literature than implemented LHS. This suggests immaturity in the domain and points to the existence of barriers preventing LHS realisation.

CONCLUSION

The lack of an ontology and framework may have been one of the causes for the failure to describe research works as falling within the LHS domain. Using our ontology and framework, LHS research works could be easily classified, demonstrating the comprehensiveness of our approach in contrast to earlier efforts.

A Data Quality Assessment Guideline for Electronic Health Record Data Reuse

Introduction:

We describe the formulation, development, and initial expert review of 3x3 Data Quality Assessment (DQA), a dynamic, evidence-based guideline to enable electronic health record (EHR) data quality assessment and reporting for clinical research.

Methods:

3x3 DQA was developed through the triangulation results from three studies: a review of the literature on EHR data quality assessment, a quantitative study of EHR data completeness, and a set of interviews with clinical researchers. Following initial development, the guideline was reviewed by a panel of EHR data quality experts.

Results:

The guideline embraces the task-dependent nature of data quality and data quality assessment. The core framework includes three constructs of data quality: complete, correct, and current data. These constructs are operationalized according to the three primary dimensions of EHR data: patients, variables, and time. Each of the nine operationalized constructs maps to a methodological recommendation for EHR data quality assessment. The initial expert response to the framework was positive, but improvements are required.

Discussion:

The initial version of 3x3 DQA promises to enable explicit guideline-based best practices for EHR data quality assessment and reporting. Future work will focus on increasing clarity on how and when 3x3 DQA should be used during the research process, improving the feasibility and ease-of-use of recommendation execution, and clarifying the process for users to determine which operationalized constructs and recommendations are relevant for a given dataset and study.

Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research

OBJECTIVE

To review the methods and dimensions of data quality assessment in the context of electronic health record (EHR) data reuse for research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review of the clinical research literature discussing data quality assessment methodology for EHR data was performed. Using an iterative process, the aspects of data quality being measured were abstracted and categorized, as well as the methods of assessment used.

RESULTS

Five dimensions of data quality were identified, which are completeness, correctness, concordance, plausibility, and currency, and seven broad categories of data quality assessment methods: comparison with gold standards, data element agreement, data source agreement, distribution comparison, validity checks, log review, and element presence.

DISCUSSION

Examination of the methods by which clinical researchers have investigated the quality and suitability of EHR data for research shows that there are fundamental features of data quality, which may be difficult to measure, as well as proxy dimensions. Researchers interested in the reuse of EHR data for clinical research are recommended to consider the adoption of a consistent taxonomy of EHR data quality, to remain aware of the task-dependence of data quality, to integrate work on data quality assessment from other fields, and to adopt systematic, empirically driven, statistically based methods of data quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

There is currently little consistency or potential generalizability in the methods used to assess EHR data quality. If the reuse of EHR data for clinical research is to become accepted, researchers should adopt validated, systematic methods of EHR data quality assessment.

Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review measures of data quality in electronic patient records (EPRs) in primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review of English language publications, 1980-2001.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic searches of medical databases, specialist medical informatics databases, conference proceedings, and institutional contacts.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies selected according to a predefined framework for categorising review papers.

DATA EXTRACTION

Reference standards and measurements used to judge quality.

RESULTS

Bibliographic searches identified 4589 publications. After primary exclusions 174 articles were classified, 52 of which met the inclusion criteria for review. Selected studies were primarily descriptive surveys. Variability in methods prevented meta-analysis of results. Forty eight publications were concerned with diagnostic data, 37 studies measured data quality, and 15 scoped EPR quality. Reliability of data was assessed with rate comparison. Measures of sensitivity were highly dependent on the element of EPR data being investigated, while the positive predictive value was consistently high, indicating good validity. Prescribing data were generally of better quality than diagnostic or lifestyle data.

CONCLUSION

The lack of standardised methods for assessment of quality of data in electronic patient records makes it difficult to compare results between studies. Studies should present data quality measures with clear numerators, denominators, and confidence intervals. Ambiguous terms such as "accuracy" should be avoided unless precisely defined.