Dataset Information

High concordance between chart review adjudication and electronic medical record data to identify prevalent and incident diabetes mellitus among persons with and without HIV.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electronic medical records (EMR) represent a rich source of data, but the value of EMR for health research relies on accurate ascertainment of clinical diagnoses. Identifying diabetes in EMR is complicated by the variety of accepted diagnostic criteria, some of which can be confounded by conditions such as HIV infection. We compared EMR-based criteria for estimating diabetes prevalence and incidence in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), overall and by HIV status, against physician chart review and adjudication.

Research design and methods

We used laboratory values (serum glucose and hemoglobin A1c% [HbA1c]), ICD-9 codes, and medication records from the United States Veterans Aging Cohort Study Biomarker Cohort to identify veterans with any indication of diabetes in the EMR for subsequent physician adjudication. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and kappa statistics were used to evaluate agreement of EMR-based diabetes diagnoses with chart review adjudicated diagnoses.

Results

EMR entries were reviewed for 1546 persons with HIV (PWH) and 843 HIV-negative participants through 2015. Agreement was at least moderate overall (kappa ≥ 0.42) for all pre-specified measures and among PWH vs HIV-negative, and African-American vs white sub-groups. Having at least one HbA1c ≥6.5% provided substantial agreement with chart adjudication for prevalent and incident diabetes (kappa = 0.89 and 0.73).

Conclusions

Identification of those with diabetes nationally within the VHA can be used in future studies to evaluate treatments, health outcomes, and adjust for diabetes in epidemiologic studies. Our methodology may provide insights for other organizations seeking to use EMR data for accurate determination of diabetes.

SUBMITTER: McGinnis KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7810212 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesUK Biobank is a UK-wide cohort of 502,655 people aged 40-69, recruited from National Health Service registrants between 2006-10, with healthcare data linkage. Type 2 diabetes is a key exposure and outcome. We developed algorithms to define prevalent and incident diabetes for UK Biobank. The algorithms will be implemented by UK Biobank and their results made available to researchers on request.MethodsWe used UK Biobank self-reported medical history and medication to assign prevalent diabetes and type, and tested this against linked primary and secondary care data in Welsh UK Biobank participants. Additionally, we derived and tested algorithms for incident diabetes using linked primary and secondary care data in the English Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and ran these on secondary care data in UK Biobank.Results and significanceFor prevalent diabetes, 0.001% and 0.002% of people classified as "diabetes unlikely" in UK Biobank had evidence of diabetes in their primary or secondary care record respectively. Of those classified as "probable" type 2 diabetes, 75% and 96% had specific type 2 diabetes codes in their primary and secondary care records. For incidence, 95% of people with the type 2 diabetes-specific C10F Read code in primary care had corroborative evidence of diabetes from medications, blood testing or diabetes specific process of care codes. Only 41% of people identified with type 2 diabetes in primary care had secondary care evidence of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, of incident cases using ICD-10 type 2 diabetes specific codes in secondary care, 77% had corroborative evidence of diabetes in primary care. We suggest our definition of prevalent diabetes from UK Biobank baseline data has external validity, and recommend that specific primary care Read codes should be used for incident diabetes to ensure precision. Secondary care data should be used for incident diabetes with caution, as around half of all cases are missed, and a quarter have no corroborative evidence of diabetes in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundCare plan concordance among patients and clinicians during hospitalization is suboptimal.ObjectiveThis article determines whether an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated patient portal was associated with increased understanding of the care plan, including the key recovery goal, among patients and clinicians in acute care setting.MethodsThe intervention included (1) a patient portal configured to solicit a single patient-designated recovery goal and display the care plan from the EHR for participating patients; and (2) an electronic care plan for all unit-based nurses that displays patient-inputted information, accessible to all clinicians via the EHR. Patients admitted to an oncology unit, including their nurses and physicians, were enrolled before and after implementation. Main outcomes included mean concordance scores for the overall care plan and individual care plan elements.ResultsOf 457 and 283 eligible patients approached during pre- and postintervention periods, 55 and 46 participated in interviews, respectively, including their clinicians. Of 46 postintervention patients, 27 (58.7%) enrolled in the patient portal. The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a nonsignificant increase in the mean concordance score for the overall care plan (62.0-67.1, adjusted p = 0.13), and significant increases in mean concordance scores for the recovery goal (30.3-57.7, adjusted p < 0.01) and main reason for hospitalization (58.6-79.2, adjusted p < 0.01). The on-treatment analysis of patient portal enrollees demonstrated significant increases in mean concordance scores for the overall care plan (61.9-70.0, adjusted p < 0.01), the recovery goal (30.4-66.8, adjusted p < 0.01), and main reason for hospitalization (58.3-81.7, adjusted p < 0.01), comparable to the intention-to-treat analysis.ConclusionImplementation of an EHR-integrated patient portal was associated with increased concordance for key care plan components. Future efforts should be directed at improving concordance for other care plan components and conducting larger, randomized studies to evaluate the impact on key outcomes during transitions of care.Clinical trials identifierNCT02258594.