报告数据质量评估结果:识别个人和组织的障碍和解决方案。

Tiffany Callahan, Juliana Barnard, Laura Helmkamp, Julie Maertens, Michael Kahn
{"title":"报告数据质量评估结果:识别个人和组织的障碍和解决方案。","authors":"Tiffany Callahan,&nbsp;Juliana Barnard,&nbsp;Laura Helmkamp,&nbsp;Julie Maertens,&nbsp;Michael Kahn","doi":"10.5334/egems.214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Electronic health record (EHR) data are known to have significant data quality issues, yet the practice and frequency of assessing EHR data is unknown. We sought to understand current practices and attitudes towards reporting data quality assessment (DQA) results by data professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project was conducted in four Phases: (1) examined current DQA practices among informatics/CER stakeholders via engagement meeting (07/2014); (2) characterized organizations conducting DQA by interviewing key personnel and data management professionals (07-08/2014); (3) developed and administered an anonymous survey to data professionals (03-06/2015); and (4) validated survey results during a follow-up informatics/CER stakeholder engagement meeting (06/2016).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first engagement meeting identified the theme of unintended consequences as a primary barrier to DQA. Interviewees were predominantly medical groups serving distributed networks with formalized DQAs. Consistent with the interviews, most survey (N=111) respondents utilized DQA processes/programs. A lack of resources and clear definitions of how to judge the quality of a dataset were the most commonly cited individual barriers. Vague quality action plans/expectations and data owners not trained in problem identification and problem-solving skills were the most commonly cited organizational barriers. Solutions included allocating resources for DQA, establishing standards and guidelines, and changing organizational culture.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Several barriers affecting DQA and reporting were identified. Community alignment towards systematic DQA and reporting is needed to overcome these barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Understanding barriers and solutions to DQA reporting is vital for establishing trust in the secondary use of EHR data for quality improvement and the pursuit of personalized medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":"5 1","pages":"16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/91/10/egems-5-1-214.PMC5982990.pdf","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting Data Quality Assessment Results: Identifying Individual and Organizational Barriers and Solutions.\",\"authors\":\"Tiffany Callahan,&nbsp;Juliana Barnard,&nbsp;Laura Helmkamp,&nbsp;Julie Maertens,&nbsp;Michael Kahn\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/egems.214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Electronic health record (EHR) data are known to have significant data quality issues, yet the practice and frequency of assessing EHR data is unknown. We sought to understand current practices and attitudes towards reporting data quality assessment (DQA) results by data professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The project was conducted in four Phases: (1) examined current DQA practices among informatics/CER stakeholders via engagement meeting (07/2014); (2) characterized organizations conducting DQA by interviewing key personnel and data management professionals (07-08/2014); (3) developed and administered an anonymous survey to data professionals (03-06/2015); and (4) validated survey results during a follow-up informatics/CER stakeholder engagement meeting (06/2016).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first engagement meeting identified the theme of unintended consequences as a primary barrier to DQA. Interviewees were predominantly medical groups serving distributed networks with formalized DQAs. Consistent with the interviews, most survey (N=111) respondents utilized DQA processes/programs. A lack of resources and clear definitions of how to judge the quality of a dataset were the most commonly cited individual barriers. Vague quality action plans/expectations and data owners not trained in problem identification and problem-solving skills were the most commonly cited organizational barriers. Solutions included allocating resources for DQA, establishing standards and guidelines, and changing organizational culture.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Several barriers affecting DQA and reporting were identified. Community alignment towards systematic DQA and reporting is needed to overcome these barriers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Understanding barriers and solutions to DQA reporting is vital for establishing trust in the secondary use of EHR data for quality improvement and the pursuit of personalized medicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EGEMS (Washington, DC)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/91/10/egems-5-1-214.PMC5982990.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EGEMS (Washington, DC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

导言:众所周知,电子健康记录(EHR)数据存在严重的数据质量问题,但评估EHR数据的实践和频率尚不清楚。我们试图了解当前数据专业人员对报告数据质量评估(DQA)结果的做法和态度。方法:该项目分四个阶段进行:(1)通过参与会议(07/2014)检查信息学/CER利益相关者当前的DQA实践;(2)通过采访关键人员和数据管理专业人员,对实施DQA的组织进行特征描述(07-08/2014);(3)对数据专业人员进行匿名调查(03-06/2015);(4)在后续信息学/CER利益相关者参与会议期间验证的调查结果(2016年6月)。结果:第一次参与会议确定了意想不到的结果是DQA的主要障碍。受访者主要是服务于具有正式dqa的分布式网络的医疗集团。与访谈一致,大多数调查(N=111)受访者使用DQA流程/程序。缺乏资源和如何判断数据集质量的明确定义是最常被引用的单个障碍。模糊的质量行动计划/期望和数据所有者没有接受过问题识别和解决问题技能的培训是最常被引用的组织障碍。解决方案包括为DQA分配资源,建立标准和指导方针,以及改变组织文化。讨论:确定了影响DQA和报告的几个障碍。为了克服这些障碍,需要社区对系统的DQA和报告进行协调。结论:了解DQA报告的障碍和解决方案对于在EHR数据的二次使用中建立信任以提高质量和追求个性化医疗至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reporting Data Quality Assessment Results: Identifying Individual and Organizational Barriers and Solutions.

Reporting Data Quality Assessment Results: Identifying Individual and Organizational Barriers and Solutions.

Reporting Data Quality Assessment Results: Identifying Individual and Organizational Barriers and Solutions.

Reporting Data Quality Assessment Results: Identifying Individual and Organizational Barriers and Solutions.

Introduction: Electronic health record (EHR) data are known to have significant data quality issues, yet the practice and frequency of assessing EHR data is unknown. We sought to understand current practices and attitudes towards reporting data quality assessment (DQA) results by data professionals.

Methods: The project was conducted in four Phases: (1) examined current DQA practices among informatics/CER stakeholders via engagement meeting (07/2014); (2) characterized organizations conducting DQA by interviewing key personnel and data management professionals (07-08/2014); (3) developed and administered an anonymous survey to data professionals (03-06/2015); and (4) validated survey results during a follow-up informatics/CER stakeholder engagement meeting (06/2016).

Results: The first engagement meeting identified the theme of unintended consequences as a primary barrier to DQA. Interviewees were predominantly medical groups serving distributed networks with formalized DQAs. Consistent with the interviews, most survey (N=111) respondents utilized DQA processes/programs. A lack of resources and clear definitions of how to judge the quality of a dataset were the most commonly cited individual barriers. Vague quality action plans/expectations and data owners not trained in problem identification and problem-solving skills were the most commonly cited organizational barriers. Solutions included allocating resources for DQA, establishing standards and guidelines, and changing organizational culture.

Discussion: Several barriers affecting DQA and reporting were identified. Community alignment towards systematic DQA and reporting is needed to overcome these barriers.

Conclusion: Understanding barriers and solutions to DQA reporting is vital for establishing trust in the secondary use of EHR data for quality improvement and the pursuit of personalized medicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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