Biomedical Informatics Department, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA Medicine Department, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Biomedical Informatics Department, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Sep-Oct;21(5):910-6. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002321. Epub 2014 Jan 2.
The outpatient clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, and patient management, yet there is currently no validated instrument to measure the quality of the electronic clinical note. This study evaluated the validity of the QNOTE instrument, which assesses 12 elements in the clinical note, for measuring the quality of clinical notes. It also compared its performance with a global instrument that assesses the clinical note as a whole.
Retrospective multicenter blinded study of the clinical notes of 100 outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had been seen in clinic on at least three occasions. The 300 notes were rated by eight general internal medicine and eight family medicine practicing physicians. The QNOTE instrument scored the quality of the note as the sum of a set of 12 note element scores, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. The Global instrument scored the note in its entirety, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the Fleiss κ.
The overall QNOTE inter-rater agreement was 0.82 (CI 0.80 to 0.84), and its note quality score was 65 (CI 64 to 66). The Global inter-rater agreement was 0.24 (CI 0.19 to 0.29), and its note quality score was 52 (CI 49 to 55). The QNOTE quality scores were consistent, and the overall QNOTE score was significantly higher than the overall Global score (p=0.04).
We found the QNOTE to be a valid instrument for evaluating the quality of electronic clinical notes, and its performance was superior to that of the Global instrument.
门诊临床记录文档记录了临床医生的信息收集、问题评估和患者管理,但目前尚无经过验证的工具来衡量电子临床记录的质量。本研究评估了 QNOTE 工具的有效性,该工具评估临床记录中的 12 个要素,用于衡量临床记录的质量。它还比较了其与整体评估临床记录的全球工具的性能。
这是一项回顾性多中心、盲法研究,纳入了至少三次就诊的 100 例 2 型糖尿病门诊患者的临床记录。300 份记录由 8 名普通内科医生和 8 名家庭医学执业医生进行评分。QNOTE 工具将记录的质量评分作为一组 12 个记录要素评分的总和,其组内相关系数(intraclass correlation coefficient)衡量其评分者间的一致性。全球工具对整个记录进行评分,Fleiss κ 衡量其评分者间的一致性。
整体 QNOTE 评分者间的一致性为 0.82(CI 0.80 至 0.84),其记录质量评分为 65(CI 64 至 66)。全球工具的评分者间的一致性为 0.24(CI 0.19 至 0.29),其记录质量评分为 52(CI 49 至 55)。QNOTE 的质量评分具有一致性,整体 QNOTE 评分明显高于整体全球评分(p=0.04)。
我们发现 QNOTE 是评估电子临床记录质量的有效工具,其性能优于全球工具。