Comparing the Use of Administrative Claims with the Electronic Health Record Data for Identifying Diabetic Retinopathy Examinations.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Thomas Su, Alison Gibbons, Diep Tran, Cindy X Cai
{"title":"Comparing the Use of Administrative Claims with the Electronic Health Record Data for Identifying Diabetic Retinopathy Examinations.","authors":"Thomas Su, Alison Gibbons, Diep Tran, Cindy X Cai","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2025.2528675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To characterize differences in identification of diabetic retinopathy examinations using administrative claims and electronic health record data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients ≥18 years with diabetes seen in the ophthalmology department at Johns Hopkins Hospital were included. Two methodologies were used to identify diabetic retinopathy examinations across the hospital system. First, a pre-specified set of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from administrative claims data were used. Second, natural language processing (NLP) was used to parse ophthalmology provider notes for mention of diabetic retinopathy screening or follow-up. The percentage of visits meeting each set of criteria was determined. Cohen's kappa of agreement between the two methodologies was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 59,538 patients and 1,926,828 office visits, of which 485,228 (25%) were in the ophthalmology department, were included. Most patients (86%) had at least one diabetic retinopathy examination identified using administrative codes, and 84% using the NLP-based methodology. Of all ophthalmology visits, administrative codes identified more diabetic retinopathy examinations compared to the NLP-based methodology (60%, versus 48%). Cohen's kappa for agreement was 0.57 (standard error 0.001, <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found only moderate agreement between the two methodologies for identifying diabetic retinopathy examinations. Given the imprecision of administrative codes, this suggests that prior studies reporting eye care utilization using only administrative claims may be over-estimating receipt of diabetic retinopathy examinations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12258966/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2025.2528675","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize differences in identification of diabetic retinopathy examinations using administrative claims and electronic health record data.

Methods: Adult patients ≥18 years with diabetes seen in the ophthalmology department at Johns Hopkins Hospital were included. Two methodologies were used to identify diabetic retinopathy examinations across the hospital system. First, a pre-specified set of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from administrative claims data were used. Second, natural language processing (NLP) was used to parse ophthalmology provider notes for mention of diabetic retinopathy screening or follow-up. The percentage of visits meeting each set of criteria was determined. Cohen's kappa of agreement between the two methodologies was calculated.

Results: A total of 59,538 patients and 1,926,828 office visits, of which 485,228 (25%) were in the ophthalmology department, were included. Most patients (86%) had at least one diabetic retinopathy examination identified using administrative codes, and 84% using the NLP-based methodology. Of all ophthalmology visits, administrative codes identified more diabetic retinopathy examinations compared to the NLP-based methodology (60%, versus 48%). Cohen's kappa for agreement was 0.57 (standard error 0.001, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: This study found only moderate agreement between the two methodologies for identifying diabetic retinopathy examinations. Given the imprecision of administrative codes, this suggests that prior studies reporting eye care utilization using only administrative claims may be over-estimating receipt of diabetic retinopathy examinations.

比较使用行政索赔与电子健康记录数据识别糖尿病视网膜病变检查。
目的:描述使用行政索赔和电子健康记录数据识别糖尿病视网膜病变检查的差异。方法:纳入在约翰霍普金斯医院眼科就诊的≥18岁的成人糖尿病患者。两种方法被用来确定整个医院系统的糖尿病视网膜病变检查。首先,使用了来自行政索赔数据的一组预先指定的当前程序术语(CPT)代码。其次,使用自然语言处理(NLP)来解析眼科医生关于糖尿病视网膜病变筛查或随访的记录。确定了满足每组标准的访问的百分比。计算了Cohen在两种方法之间的一致性kappa。结果:共纳入59,538例患者,就诊1,926,828次,其中眼科485,228次(25%)。大多数患者(86%)至少有一次使用行政代码确定的糖尿病视网膜病变检查,84%使用基于nlp的方法。在所有眼科就诊中,与基于nlp的方法相比,行政代码鉴定出更多的糖尿病视网膜病变检查(60%对48%)。Cohen的一致性kappa为0.57(标准误差0.001,p)。结论:本研究发现两种方法在鉴别糖尿病视网膜病变检查方面只有适度的一致性。鉴于行政法规的不精确性,这表明先前的研究报告仅使用行政索赔的眼科保健利用可能高估了糖尿病视网膜病变检查的接收。
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
Ophthalmic epidemiology
Ophthalmic epidemiology 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信