Objective Despite the widespread and increasing use of electronic health records (EHRs), the quality of EHRs is problematic. Efforts have been made to address reasons for poor EHR documentation quality. Previous systematic reviews have assessed intervention effectiveness within the outpatient setting or paper documentation. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions seeking to improve EHR documentation within an inpatient setting. Materials and Methods A search strategy was developed based on elaborated inclusion/exclusion criteria. Four databases, gray literature, and reference lists were searched. A REDCap data capture form was used for data extraction, and study quality was assessed using a customized tool. Data were analyzed and synthesized in a narrative, semiquantitative manner. Results Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. Owing to high heterogeneity, quantitative comparison was not possible. However, statistically significant results in interventions and affected outcomes were analyzed and discussed. Education and implementation of a new EHR reporting system were the most successful interventions, as evidenced by significantly improved EHR documentation. Discussion Heterogeneity of interventions, outcomes, document type, EHR user, and other variables led to difficulty in measuring EHR documentation quality and effectiveness of interventions. However, the use of education as a primary intervention aligned closely with existing literature in similar fields. Conclusions Interventions implemented to enhance EHR documentation are highly variable and require standardization. Emphasis should be placed on this novel area of research to improve communication between healthcare providers and facilitate data sharing between centers and countries. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42017083494.
Background The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the reference standard for reporting diseases and health conditions globally. Variations in ICD use and data collection across countries can hinder meaningful comparisons of morbidity data. Thus, we aimed to characterize ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features worldwide. Methods An online questionnaire was created to poll the World Health Organization (WHO) member countries that were using ICD. The survey included questions focused on ICD meta-features and hospital data collection systems, and was distributed via SurveyMonkey using purposive and snowball sampling. Accordingly, senior representatives from organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers, and other experts in ICD coding were invited to fill out the survey and forward the questionnaire to their peers. Answers were collated by country, analyzed, and presented in a narrative form with descriptive analysis. Results Responses from 47 participants were collected, representing 26 different countries using ICD. Results indicated worldwide disparities in the ICD meta-features regarding the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnosis, the definition of main condition, and the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database. Accordingly, the most frequently reported answers were “reason for admission” as main condition definition (n = 14), having 31 or more diagnostic fields available (n = 12), and “Diagnoses” (n = 26) and “Patient demographics” (n = 25) for mandatory data fields. Discrepancies in data collection systems occurred between but also within countries, thereby revealing a lack of standardization both at the international and national level. Additionally, some countries reported specific data collection features, including the use or misuse of ICD coding, the national standards for coding or lack thereof, and the electronic abstracting systems utilized in hospitals. Conclusions Harmonizing ICD coding standards/guidelines should be a common goal to enhance international comparisons of health data. The current international status of ICD data collection highlights the need for the promotion of ICD and the adoption of the newest version, ICD-11. Furthermore, it will encourage further research on how to improve and standardize ICD coding.
IntroductionThe unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic unveiled a strong need for advanced and informative surveillance tools. The Centre for Health Informatics (CHI) at the University of Calgary took action to develop a surveillance dashboard, which would facilitate the education of the public, and answer critical questions posed by local and national government. ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to create an interactive method of surveillance, or a “COVID-19 Tracker” for Canadian use. The Tracker offers user-friendly graphics characterizing various aspects of the current pandemic (e.g. case count, testing, hospitalizations, and policy interventions). MethodsSix publicly available data sources were used, and were selected based on the frequency of updates, accuracy and types of data, and data presentation. The datasets have different levels of granularity for different provinces, which limits the information that we are able to show. Additionally, some datasets have missing entries, for which the “last observation carried forward” method was used. The website was created and hosted online, with a backend server, which is updated on a daily basis. The Tracker development followed an iterative process, as new figures were added to meet the changing needs of policy-makers. ResultsThe resulting Tracker is a dashboard that visualizes real-time data, along with policy interventions from various countries, via user-friendly graphs with a hover option that reveals detailed information. The interactive features allow the user to customize the figures by jurisdiction, country/region, and the type of data shown. Data is displayed at the national and provincial level, as well as by health regions. ConclusionsThe COVID-19 Tracker offers real-time, detailed, and interactive visualizations that have the potential to shape crucial decision-making and inform Albertans and Canadians of the current pandemic.
BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are increasing in popularity across national and international healthcare systems. Despite their augmented availability and use, the quality of electronic health records is problematic. There are various reasons for poor documentation quality within the EHR, and efforts have been made to address these areas. Previous systematic reviews have assessed intervention effectiveness within the outpatient setting or within paper documentation. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of different interventions seeking to improve EHR documentation within an inpatient setting.MethodsWe will employ a comprehensive search strategy that encompasses four distinct themes: EHR, documentation, interventions, and study design. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) will be searched along with an in-depth examination of the grey literature and reference lists of relevant articles. A customized hybrid study quality assessment tool has been designed, integrating components of the Downs and Black and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales, into a REDCap data capture form to facilitate data extraction and analysis. Given the predicted high heterogeneity between studies, it may not be possible to standardize data for a quantitative comparison and meta-analysis. Thus, data will be synthesized in a narrative, semi-quantitative manner.DiscussionThis review will summarize the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions implemented to improve inpatient EHR documentation, which could ultimately enhance data quality in administrative health databases.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017083494Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0971-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.