Altman Molly R, Colorafi Karen, Daratha Kenn B
Appl Clin Inform. 2018 Jan;9(1):156-162. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1627475. Epub 2018 Mar 7.
Hospital electronic health record (EHR) data are increasingly being called upon for research purposes, yet only recently has it been tested to examine its reliability. Studies that have examined reliability of EHR data for research purposes have varied widely in methods used and field of inquiry, with little reporting of the reliability of perinatal and obstetric variables in the current literature.
To assess the reliability of data extracted from a commercially available inpatient EHR as compared with manually abstracted data for common attributes used in obstetrical research.
Data extracted through automated EHR reports for 3,250 women who delivered a live infant at a large hospital in the Pacific Northwest were compared with manual chart abstraction for the following perinatal measures: delivery method, labor induction, labor augmentation, cervical ripening, vertex presentation, and postpartum hemorrhage.
Almost perfect agreement was observed for all four modes of delivery (vacuum assisted: kappa = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.88-0.95, forceps assisted: kappa = 0.90; 95%CI = 0.76-1.00, cesarean delivery: kappa = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.90-0.93, and spontaneous vaginal delivery: kappa = 0.91; 95%CI = 0.90-0.93). Cervical ripening demonstrated substantial agreement (kappa = 0.77; 95%CI = 0.73-0.80); labor induction (kappa = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.62-0.68) and augmentation (kappa = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.49-0.58) demonstrated moderate agreement between the two data sources. Vertex presentation (kappa = 0.35; 95%CI = 0.31-0.40) and post-partum hemorrhage (kappa = 0.21; 95%CI = 0.13-0.28) demonstrated fair agreement.
Our study demonstrates variability in the reliability of obstetrical data collected and reported through the EHR. While delivery method was satisfactorily reliable in our sample, other examined perinatal measures were less so when compared with manual chart abstraction. The use of multiple modalities for assessing reliability presents a more consistent and rigorous approach for assessing reliability of data from EHR systems and underscores the importance of requiring validation of automated EHR data for research purposes.
医院电子健康记录(EHR)数据越来越多地被用于研究目的,但直到最近才对其可靠性进行测试。为研究目的而检查EHR数据可靠性的研究在使用的方法和研究领域方面差异很大,当前文献中很少有关于围产期和产科变量可靠性的报道。
评估从市售住院EHR中提取的数据与产科研究中常用属性的手动摘要数据相比的可靠性。
将通过自动EHR报告从太平洋西北部一家大型医院分娩活产婴儿的3250名妇女中提取的数据,与以下围产期指标的手动图表摘要进行比较:分娩方式、引产、产程加强、宫颈成熟度、头先露和产后出血。
观察到所有四种分娩方式的一致性几乎完美(真空辅助:kappa = 0.92;95%置信区间[CI]=0.88 - 0.95,产钳辅助:kappa = 0.90;95%CI = 0.76 - 1.00,剖宫产:kappa = 0.91;95%CI = 0.90 - 0.93,自然阴道分娩:kappa = 0.91;95%CI = 0.90 - 0.93)。宫颈成熟度显示出实质性一致性(kappa = 0.77;95%CI = 0.73 - 0.80);引产(kappa = 0.65;95%CI = 0.62 - 0.68)和产程加强(kappa = 0.54;95%CI = 0.49 - 0.58)在两个数据源之间显示出中度一致性。头先露(kappa = 0.35;95%CI = 0.31 - 0.40)和产后出血(kappa = 0.21;95%CI = 0.13 - 0.28)显示出一般一致性。
我们的研究表明,通过EHR收集和报告的产科数据在可靠性方面存在差异。虽然在我们的样本中分娩方式的可靠性令人满意,但与手动图表摘要相比,其他检查的围产期指标的可靠性较低。使用多种方式评估可靠性为评估EHR系统数据的可靠性提供了一种更一致和严格的方法,并强调了为研究目的而要求对自动EHR数据进行验证的重要性。