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
. 2017 Jun 12;5(1):8.
doi: 10.5334/egems.223.

A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks

Affiliations

A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks

Tiffany J Callahan et al. EGEMS (Wash DC). .

Abstract

Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.

Methods: Six organizations with established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until consensus was achieved.

Results: Participating organizations provided 11,026 DQ checks, of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ checks (N=11,023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84 percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories.

Discussion: Using the common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This variation may be related to the organization's stakeholder requirements, primary analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights into DQA practice differences.

Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data networks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Harmonized DQA Terminology Mapped DQ Check Coverage
Figure 2
Figure 2
Harmonized DQA Terminology Coverage of Mapped DQ Checks by Organization

References

    1. Wright A. Henkin S, Feblowitz J, McCoy AB, Bates DW, Sittig DF. Early results of the meaningful use program for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2013. February 21;368(8):779–80. - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control. Introduction: Meaningful Use [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jul 8]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ehrmeaningfuluse/introduction.html
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Data and Program Reports [Internet]. 2016. [cited 2016 Jul 8]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePro...
    1. Heisey-Grove D, Danehy L-N, Consolazio M, Lynch K, Mostashari F. A national study of challenges to electronic health record adoption and meaningful use. Med Care. 2014. February;52(2):144–8. - PubMed
    1. Weng C, Appelbaum P, Hripcsak G, Kronish I, Busacca L, Davidson KW, et al. Using EHRs to integrate research with patient care: promises and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA. 2012. October;19(5):684–7 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources