Dataset Information

Comparison of the information provided by electronic health records data and a population health survey to estimate prevalence of selected health conditions and multimorbidity.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Health surveys (HS) are a well-established methodology for measuring the health status of a population. The relative merit of using information based on HS versus electronic health records (EHR) to measure multimorbidity has not been established. Our study had two objectives: 1) to measure and compare the prevalence and distribution of multimorbidity in HS and EHR data, and 2) to test specific hypotheses about potential differences between HS and EHR reporting of diseases with a symptoms-based diagnosis and those requiring diagnostic testing. METHODS:Cross-sectional study using data from a periodic HS conducted by the Catalan government and from EHR covering 80% of the Catalan population aged 15 years and older. We determined the prevalence of 27 selected health conditions in both data sources, calculated the prevalence and distribution of multimorbidity (defined as the presence of ?2 of the selected conditions), and determined multimorbidity patterns. We tested two hypotheses: a) health conditions requiring diagnostic tests for their diagnosis and management would be more prevalent in the EHR; and b) symptoms-based health problems would be more prevalent in the HS data. RESULTS:We analysed 15,926 HS interviews and 1,597,258 EHRs. The profile of the EHR sample was 52% women, average age 47 years (standard deviation: 18.8), and 68% having at least one of the selected health conditions, the 3 most prevalent being hypertension (20%), depression or anxiety (16%) and mental disorders (15%). Multimorbidity was higher in HS than in EHR data (60% vs. 43%, respectively, for ages 15-75+, P <0.001, and 91% vs. 83% in participants aged ?65 years, P <0.001). The most prevalent multimorbidity cluster was cardiovascular. Circulation disorders (other than varicose veins), chronic allergies, neck pain, haemorrhoids, migraine or frequent headaches and chronic constipation were more prevalent in the HS. Most symptomatic conditions (71%) had a higher prevalence in the HS, while less than a third of conditions requiring diagnostic tests were more prevalent in EHR. CONCLUSIONS:Prevalence of multimorbidity varies depending on age and the source of information. The prevalence of self-reported multimorbidity was significantly higher in HS data among younger patients; prevalence was similar in both data sources for elderly patients. Self-report appears to be more sensitive to identifying symptoms-based conditions. A comprehensive approach to the study of multimorbidity should take into account the patient perspective.

SUBMITTER: Violan C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3659017 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the information provided by electronic health records data and a population health survey to estimate prevalence of selected health conditions and multimorbidity.

Violán Concepción C Foguet-Boreu Quintí Q Hermosilla-Pérez Eduardo E Valderas Jose M JM Bolíbar Bonaventura B Fàbregas-Escurriola Mireia M Brugulat-Guiteras Pilar P Muñoz-Pérez Miguel Ángel MÁ

BMC public health 20130321

<h4>Background</h4>Health surveys (HS) are a well-established methodology for measuring the health status of a population. The relative merit of using information based on HS versus electronic health records (EHR) to measure multimorbidity has not been established. Our study had two objectives: 1) to measure and compare the prevalence and distribution of multimorbidity in HS and EHR data, and 2) to test specific hypotheses about potential differences between HS and EHR reporting of diseases with ...[more]

PMID: 23517342

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use.ResultsWe included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact.ConclusionsThis review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are a common presentation in primary care. This study sought to determine the prevalence of MSK conditions in primary care in Ontario and to validate the extent to which health administrative date billing codes accurately represent MSK diagnoses.MethodsDe-identified electronic medical records (EMR) from the DELPHI database in southwestern Ontario, which contains 2493 patients (55.6% female, mean age 50.3 years (SD = 22.2)) and 21,964 encounters (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2010) were used for the analyses. Outcomes included: validation measures of agreement between International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) diagnostic codes (health administrative data) and International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) diagnoses defined as the reference standard, time to first ICD-9 code, prevalence, and healthcare utilization.ResultsThere were 2940 true positive MSK encounters with primary care practitioners for 998 patients. Performance of the ICD-9 diagnostic codes included sensitivity = 76.5%, specificity = 95.2%, PPV = 94.6%, and NPV = 78.7%, compared to the ICPC reference standard. The majority of 998 patients were coded with both an ICPC and ICD-9 MSK code at their first or second encounter (67.4%). However, 23.5% of patients with the ICPC reference standard MSK were never coded with ICD-9. Four-year prevalence of MSK was 52.3% and varied by age (4.5% 0-17 years, 20.1% 18-44, 42.7% 45-64, and 32.7% 65+). Patients at MSK encounters had a higher number of: investigations (17.9% compared to 9.1%, p < .0001); referrals (17.6% compared to 14.3%, p < .0001); and prescriptions for opioids (17.2% compared to 5.3%, p < .0001).ConclusionsThis study determined the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions in primary care in Ontario using a reference standard definition. The study highlighted the value of using primary care ICPC codes to validate a definition for musculoskeletal conditions. Health administrative data can be used to ascertain the presence of musculoskeletal conditions; however, ICD-9 codes may underrepresent the prevalence of MSK conditions.

Project description:ImportanceMany people use cannabis for medical reasons despite limited evidence of therapeutic benefit and potential risks. Little is known about medical practitioners' documentation of medical cannabis use or clinical characteristics of patients with documented medical cannabis use.ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence of past-year medical cannabis use documented in electronic health records (EHRs) and to describe patients with EHR-documented medical cannabis use, EHR-documented cannabis use without evidence of medical use (other cannabis use), and no EHR-documented cannabis use.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed adult primary care patients who completed a cannabis screen during a visit between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2018, at a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in a US state with legal medical and recreational cannabis use.ExposuresThree mutually exclusive categories of EHR-documented cannabis use (medical, other, and no use) based on practitioner documentation of medical cannabis use in the EHR and patient report of past-year cannabis use at screening.Main outcomes and measuresHealth conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits or risks were defined based on National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's review. The adjusted prevalence of conditions diagnosed in the prior year were estimated across 3 categories of EHR-documented cannabis use with logistic regression.ResultsA total of 185 565 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.0 [18.1] years; 59% female, 73% White, 94% non-Hispanic, and 61% commercially insured) were screened for cannabis use in a primary care visit during the study period. Among these patients, 3551 (2%) had EHR-documented medical cannabis use, 36 599 (20%) had EHR-documented other cannabis use, and 145 415 (78%) had no documented cannabis use. Patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential benefits (49.8%; 95% CI, 48.3%-51.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (39.9%; 95% CI, 39.4%-40.3%) or no cannabis use (40.0%; 95% CI, 39.8%-40.2%). In addition, patients with medical cannabis use had a higher prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis has potential risks (60.7%; 95% CI, 59.0%-62.3%) compared with patients with other cannabis use (50.5%; 95% CI, 50.0%-51.0%) or no cannabis use (42.7%; 95% CI, 42.4%-42.9%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, primary care patients with documented medical cannabis use had a high prevalence of health conditions for which cannabis use has potential benefits, yet a higher prevalence of conditions with potential risks from cannabis use. These findings suggest that practitioners should be prepared to discuss potential risks and benefits of cannabis use with patients.

Project description:ImportancePatients can develop multiple skin cancers, and their medical data can be spread over multiple health care systems. This fragmented care, combined with the lack of skin cancer registries, has limited our ability both to provide accurate estimates of incidence and to study the pathogenesis of multiple skin cancers.ObjectiveTo assess whether standard diagnostic and procedural codes present in the electronic health records at a single health care system are a valid proxy for estimating the number of overall skin cancers.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of patients seen at a single-center tertiary care hospital (ie, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2018. All patients with at least 1 electronic health record-based diagnostic or procedural code for any skin cancer and at least 1 pathology report of a skin cancer.ExposureThe number of International Classification of Disease (ICD) or Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes relating to skin cancer.Main outcomes and measuresPearson correlation coefficient and R2 were calculated for the total number of ICD or CPT codes for skin cancer and histologically verified skin cancers.ResultsIn this cohort study of 35 901 patients, the mean (SD) age was 70.4 (14.4) years, 20 404 (56.8%) were men, and 31 623 (88.1%) were White individuals. Of these patients, 6307 had at least 1 ICD or CPT code or pathology report for a skin cancer, of whom 5688 patients had both a CPT code related to skin malignancy and a histologically verified skin cancer. There was a strong linear correlation between the number of CPT codes and pathology records (r = 0.87). There was a poor correlation between the number of ICD codes and pathology records (r = 0.22).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that the use of ICD codes was a poor proxy measure for the number of skin cancers per patient. In contrast, CPT codes accounted for more than 75% of the variability in the number of skin cancers (R2 = 0.76) and were a better proxy measure for the total number of skin cancers per patient.

Project description:BackgroundCharacterising the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID-19 is vital for effective policy and planning. Older age, and underlying health conditions, are associated with higher risk of death from COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom.MethodsWe used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to estimate the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region with binomial exact confidence intervals. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status.ResultsOn 5 March 2019, 24.4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8.3% of school-aged children, 19.6% of working-aged adults, and 66.2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7.1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1.6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 y.ConclusionsThe population at risk of severe COVID-19 (defined as either aged ≥70 years, or younger with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. Our national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates in other countries. We provide age- and region- stratified prevalence for each condition to support effective modelling of public health interventions and planning of vaccine resource allocation. The high prevalence of health conditions among older age groups suggests that age-targeted vaccination strategies may efficiently target individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the information provided by electronic health records data and a population health survey to estimate prevalence of selected health conditions and multimorbidity.

Publications

Comparison of the information provided by electronic health records data and a population health survey to estimate prevalence of selected health conditions and multimorbidity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets