Survey of Satisfaction and Utility of an Application to Find Inconsistencies in Trauma Registry Data.

Q4 Medicine
Journal of registry management Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Jacob W Roden-Foreman
{"title":"Survey of Satisfaction and Utility of an Application to Find Inconsistencies in Trauma Registry Data.","authors":"Jacob W Roden-Foreman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Data quality is essential for trauma registries, but few tools have been developed to maximize it. The author's center created a new application to automatically identify >500 logic errors in registry data and produce individualized data quality reports for staff. Objective metrics indicated the application is effective, but staff perceptions were unknown. The aim of this project was to assess registry staff satisfaction with and perceived usefulness of the new application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Anonymous cross-sectional online survey with 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 10 eligible staff members who use the new application, 8 responded to the survey. Confidence in data accuracy before the new application was generally low but unanimously higher after implementation (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8). Respondents found the application at least somewhat helpful overall (6/6; 95% CI, 3/6-6/6; 2 nonresponses), with 5/6 finding it very helpful. Respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the new application (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8), with 4/8 being very satisfied. There was minimal negative feedback other than the new process being initially overwhelming.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Respondents found the new application to be beneficial in several ways, including indirectly. Additional research is needed to be able to generalize these single center findings and determine best practices for data validation, but software-based approaches to augment more common data validation processes may be a beneficial and welcomed job aid for registry staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":39246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of registry management","volume":"51 2","pages":"75-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343437/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of registry management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Data quality is essential for trauma registries, but few tools have been developed to maximize it. The author's center created a new application to automatically identify >500 logic errors in registry data and produce individualized data quality reports for staff. Objective metrics indicated the application is effective, but staff perceptions were unknown. The aim of this project was to assess registry staff satisfaction with and perceived usefulness of the new application.

Methods: Anonymous cross-sectional online survey with 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses.

Results: Of 10 eligible staff members who use the new application, 8 responded to the survey. Confidence in data accuracy before the new application was generally low but unanimously higher after implementation (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8). Respondents found the application at least somewhat helpful overall (6/6; 95% CI, 3/6-6/6; 2 nonresponses), with 5/6 finding it very helpful. Respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the new application (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8), with 4/8 being very satisfied. There was minimal negative feedback other than the new process being initially overwhelming.

Conclusions: Respondents found the new application to be beneficial in several ways, including indirectly. Additional research is needed to be able to generalize these single center findings and determine best practices for data validation, but software-based approaches to augment more common data validation processes may be a beneficial and welcomed job aid for registry staff.

对用于查找创伤登记数据不一致之处的应用程序的满意度和实用性调查。
导言:数据质量对创伤登记至关重要,但很少有工具能最大限度地提高数据质量。作者所在的中心开发了一种新的应用程序,可自动识别登记数据中超过 500 个逻辑错误,并为工作人员生成个性化的数据质量报告。客观指标表明该应用程序是有效的,但员工的看法却不得而知。本项目旨在评估登记处工作人员对新应用程序的满意度和感知有用性:匿名横断面在线调查,采用 5 点李克特量表和自由文本回答:结果:在10名符合条件的使用新应用程序的工作人员中,有8人对调查做出了回复。在使用新应用程序之前,受访者对数据准确性的信心普遍较低,但在使用新应用程序之后,受访者对数据准确性的信心一致提高(8/8;95% CI,5/8-8/8)。总体而言,受访者认为该应用程序至少在一定程度上有所帮助(6/6;95% CI,3/6-6/6;2 人未回复),其中 5/6 的受访者认为该应用程序非常有用。受访者对新的应用程序至少有些满意(8/8;95% CI,5/8-8/8),其中 4/8 非常满意。除了一开始对新程序感到不知所措外,其他负面反馈极少:受访者认为新的应用程序在多个方面都有益处,包括间接益处。要推广这些单一中心的研究结果并确定数据验证的最佳实践,还需要进行更多的研究,但基于软件的方法来增强更常见的数据验证流程,对登记处工作人员来说可能是一个有益且受欢迎的工作辅助工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of registry management
Journal of registry management Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信