Discrepancies in Aggregate Patient Data between Two Sources with Data Originating from the Same Electronic Health Record: A Case Study.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1055/a-2441-3677
Allen J Yiu, Graham Stephenson, Emilie Chow, Ryan O'Connell
{"title":"Discrepancies in Aggregate Patient Data between Two Sources with Data Originating from the Same Electronic Health Record: A Case Study.","authors":"Allen J Yiu, Graham Stephenson, Emilie Chow, Ryan O'Connell","doi":"10.1055/a-2441-3677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong> Data exploration in modern electronic health records (EHRs) is often aided by user-friendly graphical interfaces providing \"self-service\" tools for end users to extract data for quality improvement, patient safety, and research without prerequisite training in database querying. Other resources within the same institution, such as Honest Brokers, may extract data sourced from the same EHR but obtain different results leading to questions of data completeness and correctness.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong> Our objectives were to (1) examine the differences in aggregate output generated by a \"self-service\" graphical interface data extraction tool and our institution's clinical data warehouse (CDW), sourced from the same database, and (2) examine the causative factors that may have contributed to these differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> Aggregate demographic data of patients who received influenza vaccines at three static clinics and three drive-through clinics in similar locations between August 2020 and December 2020 was extracted separately from our institution's EHR data exploration tool and our CDW by our organization's Honest Brokers System. We reviewed the aggregate outputs, sliced by demographics and vaccination sites, to determine potential differences between the two outputs. We examined the underlying data model, identifying the source of each database.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> We observed discrepancies in patient volumes between the two sources, with variations in demographic information, such as age, race, ethnicity, and primary language. These variations could potentially influence research outcomes and interpretations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> This case study underscores the need for a thorough examination of data quality and the implementation of comprehensive user education to ensure accurate data extraction and interpretation. Enhancing data standardization and validation processes is crucial for supporting reliable research and informed decision-making, particularly if demographic data may be used to support targeted efforts for a specific population in research or quality improvement initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"16 1","pages":"137-144"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11821296/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2441-3677","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:  Data exploration in modern electronic health records (EHRs) is often aided by user-friendly graphical interfaces providing "self-service" tools for end users to extract data for quality improvement, patient safety, and research without prerequisite training in database querying. Other resources within the same institution, such as Honest Brokers, may extract data sourced from the same EHR but obtain different results leading to questions of data completeness and correctness.

Objectives:  Our objectives were to (1) examine the differences in aggregate output generated by a "self-service" graphical interface data extraction tool and our institution's clinical data warehouse (CDW), sourced from the same database, and (2) examine the causative factors that may have contributed to these differences.

Methods:  Aggregate demographic data of patients who received influenza vaccines at three static clinics and three drive-through clinics in similar locations between August 2020 and December 2020 was extracted separately from our institution's EHR data exploration tool and our CDW by our organization's Honest Brokers System. We reviewed the aggregate outputs, sliced by demographics and vaccination sites, to determine potential differences between the two outputs. We examined the underlying data model, identifying the source of each database.

Results:  We observed discrepancies in patient volumes between the two sources, with variations in demographic information, such as age, race, ethnicity, and primary language. These variations could potentially influence research outcomes and interpretations.

Conclusion:  This case study underscores the need for a thorough examination of data quality and the implementation of comprehensive user education to ensure accurate data extraction and interpretation. Enhancing data standardization and validation processes is crucial for supporting reliable research and informed decision-making, particularly if demographic data may be used to support targeted efforts for a specific population in research or quality improvement initiatives.

来自同一电子健康记录的两个来源的汇总患者数据的差异:一个案例研究。
背景:现代电子健康记录(EHRs)中的数据探索通常由用户友好的图形界面辅助,这些界面为最终用户提供“自助服务”工具,以提取数据以提高质量、患者安全和研究,而无需数据库查询方面的先决条件培训。同一机构内的其他资源,如Honest Brokers,可能从相同的EHR中提取数据,但得到不同的结果,从而导致数据完整性和正确性的问题。目标:我们的目标是:(1)检查来自同一数据库的“自助服务”图形界面数据提取工具和我们机构的临床数据仓库(CDW)产生的总输出的差异,以及(2)检查可能导致这些差异的致病因素。方法:在2020年8月至2020年12月期间,在三家固定诊所和三家类似地点的免下车诊所接种流感疫苗的患者的汇总人口统计数据分别从我们机构的EHR数据探索工具和我们的CDW中提取。我们审查了按人口统计和疫苗接种地点划分的总产出,以确定两种产出之间的潜在差异。我们检查了底层数据模型,确定了每个数据库的来源。结果:我们观察到两种来源的患者数量存在差异,人口统计信息(如年龄、种族、民族和主要语言)存在差异。这些差异可能潜在地影响研究结果和解释。结论:本案例研究强调需要对数据质量进行彻底检查,并实施全面的用户教育,以确保准确的数据提取和解释。加强数据标准化和验证过程对于支持可靠的研究和知情决策至关重要,特别是如果人口统计数据可用于支持研究或质量改进倡议中针对特定人群的有针对性的努力。
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
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
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