Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 May 17;326(7398):1070.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070.

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

Affiliations

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

Krish Thiru et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Moss F. Spreading the word: information for quality. Quality Health Care 1994; 46-50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. House of Lords. Select committee on science and technology: fourth report. 2001. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldselect/l... (accessed 1 Jan 2003).
    1. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997;4: 342-55. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eames M, ed. The general practice research database: data quality in measuring morbidity and health: what information can general practice deliver. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire, 1996.
    1. Department of General Practice. GPASS data validation report. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. 1995.

Publication types

MeSH terms