Suppr超能文献

挪威创伤登记处的数据与电子患者记录中的相应数据吻合良好。

Excellent agreement of Norwegian trauma registry data compared to corresponding data in electronic patient records.

机构信息

Biobank and Registry Support Department, Division for medical quality registries for South- Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Department of Research and Development, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

出版信息

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2023 Sep 26;31(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13049-023-01118-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) is designed to monitor and improve the quality and outcome of trauma care delivered by Norwegian trauma hospitals. Patient care is evaluated through specific quality indicators, which are constructed of variables reported to the registry by certified registrars. Having high-quality data recorded in the registry is essential for the validity, trust and use of data. This study aims to perform a data quality check of a subset of core data elements in the registry by assessing agreement between data in the NTR and corresponding data in electronic patient records (EPRs).

METHODS

We validated 49 of the 118 variables registered in the NTR by comparing those with the corresponding ones in electronic patient records for 180 patients with a trauma diagnosis admitted in 2019 at eight public hospitals. Agreement was quantified by calculating observed agreement, Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's first agreement coefficient (AC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 27 nominal variables, quadratic weighted Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's second agreement coefficient (AC) for five ordinal variables. For nine continuous, one date and seven time variables, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Almost perfect agreement (AC /AC/ ICC > 0.80) was observed for all examined variables. Nominal and ordinal variables showed Gwet's agreement coefficients ranging from 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91) to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00). For continuous and time variables there were detected high values of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91) and 1.00 (CI 95%: 1.00-1.00). While missing values in both the NTR and EPRs were in general negligeable, we found a substantial amount of missing registrations for a continuous "Base excess" in the NTR. For some of the time variables missing values both in the NTR and EPRs were high.

CONCLUSION

All tested variables in the Norwegian Trauma Registry displayed excellent agreement with the corresponding variables in electronic patient records. Variables in the registry that showed missing data need further examination.

摘要

背景

挪威创伤登记处(NTR)旨在监测和改善挪威创伤医院提供的创伤护理的质量和结果。通过特定的质量指标来评估患者护理,这些指标是由认证登记员向登记处报告的变量构建的。在登记处记录高质量的数据对于数据的有效性、可信度和使用至关重要。本研究旨在通过评估 NTR 中的核心数据元素子集与电子患者记录(EPR)中对应数据之间的一致性,对登记处的数据质量进行检查。

方法

我们通过比较 2019 年在八家公立医院就诊的 180 名创伤诊断患者的 NTR 中 118 个变量中的 49 个变量与电子患者记录中的对应变量,验证了 118 个变量中的 49 个变量。使用观察一致性、Cohen's Kappa 和 Gwet 的第一一致性系数(AC),对 27 个名义变量和五个有序变量的二次加权 Cohen's Kappa 和 Gwet 的第二一致性系数(AC)进行了量化。对于 9 个连续变量、1 个日期变量和 7 个时间变量,我们计算了组内相关系数(ICC)。

结果

所有检查的变量都表现出几乎完美的一致性(AC / AC / ICC> 0.80)。名义和有序变量的 Gwet 一致性系数范围为 0.85(95%CI:0.79-0.91)至 1.00(95%CI:1.00-1.00)。对于连续和时间变量,组内相关系数(ICC)值较高,范围为 0.88(95%CI:0.83-0.91)至 1.00(95%CI:1.00-1.00)。虽然 NTR 和 EPR 中的缺失值通常可以忽略不计,但我们发现 NTR 中连续的“基础不足”有大量缺失记录。对于一些时间变量,NTR 和 EPR 中的缺失值都很高。

结论

挪威创伤登记处的所有测试变量与电子患者记录中的相应变量都显示出极好的一致性。登记处中显示缺失数据的变量需要进一步检查。

相似文献

1
Excellent agreement of Norwegian trauma registry data compared to corresponding data in electronic patient records.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2023 Sep 26;31(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13049-023-01118-5.
2
The completeness and accuracy of the Norwegian Female Incontinence Registry.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020 Dec;99(12):1618-1625. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13951. Epub 2020 Jul 20.
3
Interrater reliability of a national acute myocardial infarction register.
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug 17;8:305-12. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S105933. eCollection 2016.
4
Inter-rater reliability of a national acute stroke register.
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Oct 19;8:584. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1556-3.
7
Gwet's AC1 is not a substitute for Cohen's kappa - A comparison of basic properties.
MethodsX. 2023 May 10;10:102212. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102212. eCollection 2023.
9
Validation of the Swedish Quality Register for Ear Surgery - SwedEar.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023 Oct 26;23(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02340-y.
10
Accuracy and agreement of national spine register data for 474 patients compared to corresponding electronic patient records.
Eur Spine J. 2022 Mar;31(3):801-811. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-07093-8. Epub 2022 Jan 6.

引用本文的文献

2
The Norwegian national trauma registry: development process and essential data insights.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2025 May 1;33(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s13049-025-01390-7.
4
Risk of epilepsy after traumatic brain injury: a nationwide Norwegian matched cohort study.
Front Neurol. 2024 Jun 5;15:1411692. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1411692. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Accuracy and agreement of national spine register data for 474 patients compared to corresponding electronic patient records.
Eur Spine J. 2022 Mar;31(3):801-811. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-07093-8. Epub 2022 Jan 6.
2
Accuracy and reliability of injury coding in the national Dutch Trauma Registry.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Mar 11;33(1). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab041.
3
Data accuracy in the Ontario birth Registry: a chart re-abstraction study.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec 27;19(1):1001. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4825-3.
4
How to Validate Data Quality in a Trauma Registry? The Helsinki Trauma Registry Internal Audit.
Scand J Surg. 2021 Jun;110(2):199-207. doi: 10.1177/1457496919883961. Epub 2019 Nov 6.
5
Injury coding in a national trauma registry: a one-year validation audit in a level 1 trauma centre.
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Oct 30;19(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0276-8.
7
Quality assessment of Major Trauma Registry of Navarra: completeness and correctness.
Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2019 Jun;26(2):137-144. doi: 10.1080/17457300.2018.1515229. Epub 2018 Sep 25.
8
Missing data in trauma registries: A systematic review.
Injury. 2018 Sep;49(9):1641-1647. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.035. Epub 2018 Mar 30.
9
Are the registry data reliable? An audit of a regional trauma registry in the Netherlands.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Feb 1;29(1):98-103. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzw142.
10
Interrater reliability of a national acute myocardial infarction register.
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Aug 17;8:305-12. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S105933. eCollection 2016.

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