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
. 2020 Jan;10(1):61-69.
doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0225.

Structured Chart Review: Assessment of a Structured Chart Review Methodology

Affiliations

Structured Chart Review: Assessment of a Structured Chart Review Methodology

Ashley Siems et al. Hosp Pediatr. 2020 Jan.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Chart reviews are frequently used for research, care assessments, and quality improvement activities despite an absence of data on reliability and validity. We aim to describe a structured chart review methodology and to establish its validity and reliability.

Methods: A generalizable structured chart review methodology was designed to evaluate causes of morbidity or mortality and to identify potential therapeutic advances. The review process consisted of a 2-tiered approach with a primary review completed by a site physician and a short secondary review completed by a central physician. A total of 327 randomly selected cases of known mortality or new morbidities were reviewed. Validity was assessed by using postreview surveys with a Likert scale. Reliability was assessed by percent agreement and interrater reliability.

Results: The primary reviewers agreed or strongly agreed in 94.9% of reviews that the information to form a conclusion about pathophysiological processes and therapeutic advances could be adequately found. They agreed or strongly agreed in 93.2% of the reviews that conclusions were easy to make, and confidence in the process was 94.2%. Secondary reviewers made modifications to 36.6% of cases. Duplicate reviews (n = 41) revealed excellent percent agreement for the causes (80.5%-100%) and therapeutic advances (68.3%-100%). κ statistics were strong for the pathophysiological categories but weaker for the therapeutic categories.

Conclusions: A structured chart review by knowledgeable primary reviewers, followed by a brief secondary review, can be valid and reliable.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Process for the structured chart review: step by step process for the chart review with the recommended time period, source data, and general and project-specific information.

References

    1. de Vries EN, Eikens-Jansen MP, Hamersma AM, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. Prevention of surgical malpractice claims by use of a surgical safety checklist. Ann Surg. 2011;253(3):624–628 - PubMed
    1. Klasco RS, Wolfe RE, Lee T, et al. Can medical record reviewers reliably identify errors and adverse events in the ED? Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34(6):1043–1048 - PubMed
    1. Brennan TA, Localio AR, Leape LL, et al. Identification of adverse events occurring during hospitalization. A cross-sectional study of litigation, quality assurance, and medical records at two teaching hospitals. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(3):221–226 - PubMed
    1. Allison JJ, Wall TC, Spettell CM, et al. The art and science of chart review. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2000;26(3):115–136 - PubMed
    1. Gilbert EH, Lowenstein SR, KozioI-McLain J, Barta DC, Steiner J. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27(3):305–308 - PubMed

Publication types