Dataset Information

Assessment of Extractability and Accuracy of Electronic Health Record Data for Joint Implant Registries.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Implant registries provide valuable information on the performance of implants in a real-world setting, yet they have traditionally been expensive to establish and maintain. Electronic health records (EHRs) are widely used and may include the information needed to generate clinically meaningful reports similar to a formal implant registry.

Objectives

To quantify the extractability and accuracy of registry-relevant data from the EHR and to assess the ability of these data to track trends in implant use and the durability of implants (hereafter referred to as implant survivorship), using data stored since 2000 in the EHR of the largest integrated health care system in the United States.

Design, setting, and participants

Retrospective cohort study of a large EHR of veterans who had 45 351 total hip arthroplasty procedures in Veterans Health Administration hospitals from 2000 to 2017. Data analysis was performed from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2017.

Exposures

Total hip arthroplasty.

Main outcomes and measures

Number of total hip arthroplasty procedures extracted from the EHR, trends in implant use, and relative survivorship of implants.

Results

A total of 45 351 total hip arthroplasty procedures were identified from 2000 to 2017 with 192 805 implant parts. Data completeness improved over the time. After 2014, 85% of prosthetic heads, 91% of shells, 81% of stems, and 85% of liners used in the Veterans Health Administration health care system were identified by part number. Revision burden and trends in metal vs ceramic prosthetic femoral head use were found to reflect data from the American Joint Replacement Registry. Recalled implants were obvious negative outliers in implant survivorship using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Conclusions and relevance

Although loss to follow-up remains a challenge that requires additional attention to improve the quantitative nature of calculated implant survivorship, we conclude that data collected during routine clinical care and stored in the EHR of a large health system over 18 years were sufficient to provide clinically meaningful data on trends in implant use and to identify poor implants that were subsequently recalled. This automated approach was low cost and had no reporting burden. This low-cost, low-overhead method to assess implant use and performance within a large health care setting may be useful to internal quality assurance programs and, on a larger scale, to postmarket surveillance of implant performance.

SUBMITTER: Giori NJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7961313 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Creation of a new electronic health record (EHR)-based registry often can be a "one-off" complex endeavor: first developing new EHR data collection and clinical decision support tools, followed by developing registry-specific data extractions from the EHR for analysis. Each development phase typically has its own long development and testing time, leading to a prolonged overall cycle time for delivering one functioning registry with companion reporting into production. The next registry request then starts from scratch. Such an approach will not scale to meet the emerging demand for specialty registries to support population health and value-based care. OBJECTIVE:To determine if the creation of EHR-based specialty registries could be markedly accelerated by employing (a) a finite core set of EHR data collection principles and methods, (b) concurrent engineering of data extraction and data warehouse design using a common dimensional data model for all registries, and (c) agile development methods commonly employed in new product development. METHODS:We adopted as guiding principles to (a) capture data as a byproduct of care of the patient, (b) reinforce optimal EHR use by clinicians, (c) employ a finite but robust set of EHR data capture tool types, and (d) leverage our existing technology toolkit. Registries were defined by a shared condition (recorded on the Problem List) or a shared exposure to a procedure (recorded on the Surgical History) or to a medication (recorded on the Medication List). Any EHR fields needed - either to determine registry membership or to calculate a registry-associated clinical quality measure (CQM) - were included in the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) shared dimensional data model. Extract-transform-load (ETL) code was written to pull data at defined "grains" from the EHR into the EDW model. All calculated CQM values were stored in a single Fact table in the EDW crossing all registries. Registry-specific dashboards were created in the EHR to display both (a) real-time patient lists of registry patients and (b) EDW-generated CQM data. Agile project management methods were employed, including co-development, lightweight requirements documentation with User Stories and acceptance criteria, and time-boxed iterative development of EHR features in 2-week "sprints" for rapid-cycle feedback and refinement. RESULTS:Using this approach, in calendar year 2015 we developed a total of 43 specialty chronic disease registries, with 111 new EHR data collection and clinical decision support tools, 163 new clinical quality measures, and 30 clinic-specific dashboards reporting on both real-time patient care gaps and summarized and vetted CQM measure performance trends. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests concurrent design of EHR data collection tools and reporting can quickly yield useful EHR structured data for chronic disease registries, and bodes well for efforts to migrate away from manual abstraction. This work also supports the view that in new EHR-based registry development, as in new product development, adopting agile principles and practices can help deliver valued, high-quality features early and often.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent sepsis studies have defined patients as "infected" using a combination of culture and antibiotic orders rather than billing data. However, the accuracy of these definitions is unclear. We aimed to compare the accuracy of different established criteria for identifying infected patients using detailed chart review.DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingSix hospitals from three health systems in Illinois.PatientsAdult admissions with blood culture or antibiotic orders, or Angus International Classification of Diseases infection codes and death were eligible for study inclusion as potentially infected patients. Nine-hundred to 1,000 of these admissions were randomly selected from each health system for chart review, and a proportional number of patients who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria were also included and deemed not infected.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe accuracy of published billing code criteria by Angus et al and electronic health record criteria by Rhee et al and Seymour et al (Sepsis-3) was determined using the manual chart review results as the gold standard. A total of 5,215 patients were included, with 2,874 encounters analyzed via chart review and a proportional 2,341 added who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria. In the study cohort, 27.5% of admissions had at least one infection. This was most similar to the percentage of admissions with blood culture orders (26.8%), Angus infection criteria (28.7%), and the Sepsis-3 criteria (30.4%). Sepsis-3 criteria was the most sensitive (81%), followed by Angus (77%) and Rhee (52%), while Rhee (97%) and Angus (90%) were more specific than the Sepsis-3 criteria (89%). Results were similar for patients with organ dysfunction during their admission.ConclusionsPublished criteria have a wide range of accuracy for identifying infected patients, with the Sepsis-3 criteria being the most sensitive and Rhee criteria being the most specific. These findings have important implications for studies investigating the burden of sepsis on a local and national level.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Readmissions after hospitalization for pneumonia are common, but the few risk-prediction models have poor to modest predictive ability. Data routinely collected in the electronic health record (EHR) may improve prediction. OBJECTIVE:To develop pneumonia-specific readmission risk-prediction models using EHR data from the first day and from the entire hospital stay ("full stay"). DESIGN:Observational cohort study using stepwise-backward selection and cross-validation. SUBJECTS:Consecutive pneumonia hospitalizations from 6 diverse hospitals in north Texas from 2009-2010. MEASURES:All-cause nonelective 30-day readmissions, ascertained from 75 regional hospitals. RESULTS:Of 1463 patients, 13.6% were readmitted. The first-day pneumonia-specific model included sociodemographic factors, prior hospitalizations, thrombocytosis, and a modified pneumonia severity index; the full-stay model included disposition status, vital sign instabilities on discharge, and an updated pneumonia severity index calculated using values from the day of discharge as additional predictors. The full-stay pneumonia-specific model outperformed the first-day model (C statistic 0.731 vs 0.695; P = 0.02; net reclassification index = 0.08). Compared to a validated multi-condition readmission model, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pneumonia model, and 2 commonly used pneumonia severity of illness scores, the full-stay pneumonia-specific model had better discrimination (C statistic range 0.604-0.681; P < 0.01 for all comparisons), predicted a broader range of risk, and better reclassified individuals by their true risk (net reclassification index range, 0.09-0.18). CONCLUSIONS:EHR data collected from the entire hospitalization can accurately predict readmission risk among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. This approach outperforms a first-day pneumonia-specific model, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pneumonia model, and 2 commonly used pneumonia severity of illness scores. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:209-216.

Project description:ImportanceUnderstanding how the electronic health record (EHR) system changes clinician work, productivity, and well-being is critical. Little is known regarding global variation in patterns of use.ObjectiveTo provide insights into which EHR activities clinicians spend their time doing, the EHR tools they use, the system messages they receive, and the amount of time they spend using the EHR after hours.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed the deidentified metadata of ambulatory care health systems in the US, Canada, Northern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania from January 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. All of these organizations used the EHR software from Epic Systems and represented most of Epic Systems's ambulatory customer base. The sample included all clinicians with scheduled patient appointments, such as physicians and advanced practice practitioners.ExposuresClinician EHR use was tracked by deidentified and aggregated metadata across a variety of clinical activities.Main outcomes and measuresDescriptive statistics for clinician EHR use included time spent on clinical activities, note documentation (as measured by the percentage of characters in the note generated by automated or manual data entry source), messages received, and time spent after hours.ResultsA total of 371 health systems were included in the sample, of which 348 (93.8%) were located in the US and 23 (6.2%) were located in other countries. US clinicians spent more time per day actively using the EHR compared with non-US clinicians (mean time, 90.2 minutes vs 59.1 minutes; P < .001). In addition, US clinicians vs non-US clinicians spent significantly more time performing 4 clinical activities: notes (40.7 minutes vs 30.7 minutes; P < .001), orders (19.5 minutes vs 8.75 minutes; P < .001), in-basket messages (12.5 minutes vs 4.80 minutes; P < .001), and clinical review (17.6 minutes vs 14.8 minutes; P = .01). Clinicians in the US composed more automated note text than their non-US counterparts (77.5% vs 60.8% of note text; P < .001) and received statistically significantly more messages per day (33.8 vs 12.8; P < .001). Furthermore, US clinicians used the EHR for a longer time after hours, logging in 26.5 minutes per day vs 19.5 minutes per day for non-US clinicians (P = .01). The median US clinician spent as much time actively using the EHR per day (90.1 minutes) as a non-US clinician in the 99th percentile of active EHR use time per day (90.7 minutes) in the sample. These results persisted after controlling for organizational characteristics, including structure, type, size, and daily patient volume.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that US clinicians compared with their non-US counterparts spent substantially more time actively using the EHR for a wide range of clinical activities or tasks. This finding suggests that US clinicians have a greater EHR burden that may be associated with nontechnical factors, which policy makers and health system leaders should consider when addressing clinician wellness.