Suppr超能文献

通过病历回顾确定心肌梗死类型的可行性。

Feasibility of determining myocardial infarction type from medical record review.

作者信息

Woo Ken S, Ghali William A, Southern Danielle A, Tu Jack V, Parsons Gerry, Graham Michelle M

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

出版信息

Can J Cardiol. 2008 Feb;24(2):115-7. doi: 10.1016/s0828-282x(08)70565-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Hospital discharge data are used extensively in health research. Given the clinical differences between ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), it is important that these entities be distinguishable in a medical record. The authors sought to determine the extent to which the type of MI is recorded in medical records, as well as the consistency of this designation within individual records.

METHODS

Records of all MI patients admitted to a tertiary care centre in Canada from April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001, were reviewed. Documentation and consistency of the use of the terms STEMI (Q wave, ST elevation or transmural MI) or NSTEMI (non-Q wave, subendocardial or nontransmural MI) were assessed in the admission history, progress notes, coronary care unit summary and discharge summary sections of each record.

RESULTS

Missing data were common; each chart section mentioned MI type in fewer than one-half of charts. When information was combined, it was possible to determine the type of MI in 81.1% of cases. MI type was consistently described as STEMI in 48.7% of cases, and as NSTEMI in 32.4%. Of concern, MI type was discrepant across sections in 10.5% of cases and missing entirely in 8.4% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The designation of MI cases as STEMI or NSTEMI is both incomplete and inconsistent in hospital records. This has implications for health services research conducted retrospectively using medical record data, because it is difficult to comprehensively study processes and outcomes of MI care if the type cannot be retrospectively determined.

摘要

背景

医院出院数据在健康研究中被广泛使用。鉴于ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)和非ST段抬高型心肌梗死(NSTEMI)之间的临床差异,在医疗记录中区分这些实体非常重要。作者试图确定心肌梗死类型在医疗记录中的记录程度,以及该指定在个体记录中的一致性。

方法

回顾了2000年4月1日至2001年3月31日期间入住加拿大一家三级护理中心的所有心肌梗死患者的记录。在每份记录的入院病史、病程记录、冠心病监护病房总结和出院总结部分,评估STEMI(Q波、ST段抬高或透壁性心肌梗死)或NSTEMI(非Q波、心内膜下或非透壁性心肌梗死)术语使用的记录情况和一致性。

结果

缺失数据很常见;每个图表部分提及心肌梗死类型的图表不到一半。当信息合并时,81.1%的病例能够确定心肌梗死类型。48.7%的病例心肌梗死类型一直被描述为STEMI,32.4%的病例被描述为NSTEMI。令人担忧的是,10.5%的病例各部分之间心肌梗死类型不一致,8.4%的病例完全缺失。

结论

在医院记录中,将心肌梗死病例指定为STEMI或NSTEMI既不完整也不一致。这对使用医疗记录数据进行的回顾性健康服务研究有影响,因为如果不能回顾性确定类型,就很难全面研究心肌梗死护理的过程和结果。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

9
A systematic review of discharge coding accuracy.出院编码准确性的系统评价。
J Public Health Med. 2001 Sep;23(3):205-11. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/23.3.205.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验