Measuring the Completeness and Currency of Codified Clinical Information

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: The paper describes how an objective score (CCscore) of the ‘completeness’ and ‘currency’ of codified clinical information relevant to the management of diabetes mellitus may be derived for individual practices.

Methods: A questionnaire was developed and administered to 35 practices and statistical methods were used to test for correlation between the prevalence for diabetes mellitus and the relevant CCscores

Results: No significant correlation could be found. Conclusions: The ‘quality’ of computer-stored information varies widely across English General practices for reasons that are incompletely understood. We demonstrated how CCscores may be calibrated for different ‘views’ of ‘relevance’, ‘completeness’, and ‘currency’ and yet be consistent across practices for a given ‘view’. The potential value of this score and how it may contribute to our understanding of variation in ‘information quality’ are discussed.

• References

• 1 Burns F. Information for health. Wetherby: Department of Health Publications; 1998
  Google Scholar
• 2 Burnum JF. The misinformation era: the fall of the medical record. Ann Intern Med 1989; 110: 482-4.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme (ERDIP). [Online]. 2000 [cited 2003 Febr 9]. Available from URL: www.nhsia.nhs.uk/erdip/pages/default.asp.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Department of Health. A first class service, quality in the new NHS. London: Department of Health; 1997
  Google Scholar
• 5 Baker R. Managing quality in primary health care: the need for valid information about performance. Qual Health Care 2000; 9: 83.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Primary Care Information Services. PRIMIS Overview of the Project. [Online]. 2000 [cited 2003 Febr 9]. Available from URL: www.primis.nottingham.ac.uk.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Jick H, Jick SS, Derby LE. Validation of information recorded on general practitioner based computerised data resource in the United Kingdom. BMJ 1991; 302: 766-8.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Pringle M, Ward P, Chilvers C. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 537-41.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Whitelaw FG, Nevin SL, Milne RM, Taylor RJ, Taylor MW, Watt AH. Completeness and accuracy of morbidity and repeat prescribing records held on general practice computers in Scotland. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46: 181-6.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Hassey A, Gerrett D, Wilson A. A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice. BMJ 2001; 322: 1401-5.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 RFA Team NIA. Requirements for Accreditation. NHSIA - 1999 - IA - 66. Birmingham: NHS Information Authority; 1999
  Google Scholar
• 12 Perry A. The MIQUEST project. [Online]. 2000 [cited 2003 Febr 9]. Available from URL: www.clinical-info.co.uk/miquest.htm.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Neal RD, Heywood PL, Morley S. Real world data – retrieval and validation of consultation data from four general practices. Fam Pract 1996; 13: 455-61.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Evans JS, Harries C, Dennis I, Dean J. General practitioners’ tacit and stated policies in the prescription of lipid lowering agents. Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 15-8.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Jones TV, Gerrity MS, Earp J. Written case simulations: do they predict physicians’ behavior?. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43: 805-15.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar