Skyttberg Niclas, Chen Rong, Blomqvist Hans, Koch Sabine
Niclas Skyttberg, MD, Health Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden, Email:
Appl Clin Inform. 2017 Aug 30;8(3):880-892. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2017-05-RA-0075.
Computerized clinical decision support and automation of warnings have been advocated to assist clinicians in detecting patients at risk of physiological instability. To provide reliable support such systems are dependent on high-quality vital sign data. Data quality depends on how, when and why the data is captured and/or documented.
This study aims to describe the effects on data quality of vital signs by three different types of documentation practices in five Swedish emergency hospitals, and to assess data fitness for calculating warning and triage scores. The study also provides reference data on triage vital signs in Swedish emergency care.
We extracted a dataset including vital signs, demographic and administrative data from emergency care visits (n=335027) at five Swedish emergency hospitals during 2013 using either completely paper-based, completely electronic or mixed documentation practices. Descriptive statistics were used to assess fitness for use in emergency care decision support systems aiming to calculate warning and triage scores, and data quality was described in three categories: currency, completeness and correctness. To estimate correctness, two further categories - plausibility and concordance - were used.
The study showed an acceptable correctness of the registered vital signs irrespectively of the type of documentation practice. Completeness was high in sites where registrations were routinely entered into the Electronic Health Record (EHR). The currency was only acceptable in sites with a completely electronic documentation practice.
Although vital signs that were recorded in completely electronic documentation practices showed plausible results regarding correctness, completeness and currency, the study concludes that vital signs documented in Swedish emergency care EHRs cannot generally be considered fit for use for calculation of triage and warning scores. Low completeness and currency were found if the documentation was not completely electronic.
计算机化临床决策支持和警报自动化已被提倡用于协助临床医生检测有生理不稳定风险的患者。为提供可靠支持,此类系统依赖高质量生命体征数据。数据质量取决于数据的采集和/或记录方式、时间及原因。
本研究旨在描述瑞典五家急诊医院三种不同记录方式对生命体征数据质量的影响,并评估数据是否适合用于计算警报和分诊分数。该研究还提供了瑞典急诊护理中分诊生命体征的参考数据。
我们从2013年瑞典五家急诊医院的急诊就诊记录(n = 335027)中提取了一个数据集,其中包括生命体征、人口统计学和管理数据,这些记录采用完全纸质、完全电子或混合记录方式。描述性统计用于评估在旨在计算警报和分诊分数的急诊护理决策支持系统中的适用性,数据质量分为三类:时效性、完整性和正确性。为估计正确性,还使用了另外两类——合理性和一致性。
该研究表明,无论记录方式如何,所记录生命体征的正确性均可接受。在常规将记录录入电子健康记录(EHR)的场所,完整性较高。时效性仅在完全采用电子记录方式的场所可接受。
尽管完全电子记录方式记录的生命体征在正确性、完整性和时效性方面显示出合理结果,但该研究得出结论,瑞典急诊护理EHR中记录的生命体征通常不能被认为适合用于计算分诊和警报分数。如果记录不是完全电子化的,则发现完整性和时效性较低。