Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Health Monitoring and Personalized Feedback using Multimedia Data pp 115–135Cite as

Characterisation of Data Quality in Electronic Healthcare Records

  • Chapter

Abstract

The quality of information depends on the quality of data from which it is derived, but data are of high quality only if they are fit for their intended use. Although electronic healthcare records are collected primarily for patient care and audits, their use in research can also greatly benefit the quality of life of patients. We aim to discuss the challenges and issues involved with measuring data quality in electronic health records for epidemiological and clinical research using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink as a model. We also will share our experiences of assessing data quality in medical primary care database CPRD GOLD and discuss a suggested framework that can help ensure compatibility of data quality measures for different European Electronic Healthcare Records.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Netherlands national primary care database (NPCD), hosted by NIVEL, holds information from about 1.5 million patients (approximately 10 % of the total population).

References

  1. Lawrenson, R., Williams, T., & Farmer, R. (1999). Clinical information for research; The use of general practice databases. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21, 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams, T., van Staa, T., Puri, S., & Eaton, S. (2012). Recent advances in the utility and use of the General Practice Research Database as an example of a UK Primary Care Data resource. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, 3, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran’s quality control handbook (4th ed.). TX: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  4. The good practice guidelines for GP electronic patient records, v4. (2011). Provided by NHS/connecting for health.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014). Quality and outcomes framework. Available via NICE http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/qof/indicators.jsp. Accessed May 2014.

  6. Tate, A. R., Beloff, N., Padmanabhan, S., Dungey, S., Williams, R., & Williams, T., et al. (2015). Developing a methodological approach for characterising data quality in primary care research databases (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Taggar, J. S., Coleman, T., Lewis, S., & Szatkowski, L. (2012). The impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) on the recording of smoking targets in primary care medical records: Cross-sectional analyses from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database. BMC Public Health, 12, 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. de Lusignan, S., & van Weel, C. (2006). The use of routinely collected computer data for research in primary care: Opportunities and challenges. Family Practice, 23, 253–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Lusignan, S. (2005). Codes, classifications, terminologies and nomenclatures: Definition, development and application in practice. Informatics in Primary Care, 13, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Porcheret, M., Hughes, R., Evans, D., Jordan, K., Whitehurst, T., Ogden, H., et al. (2004). Data quality of general practice electronic health records: The impact of a program of assessments, feedback, and training. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11, 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nicholson, A., Ford, E., Davies, K. A., Smith, H. E., Rait, G., Tate, A. R., et al. (2013). Optimising use of electronic health records to describe the presentation of rheumatoid arthritis in primary care: A strategy for developing code lists. PLoS One, 8(2), e54878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tate, A. R., Martin, A. G. R., Ali, A., & Cassell, J. A. (2011). Using free text information to explore how and when GPs code a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Observational study using the General Practice Research database. BMJ Open, 1, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhaskaran, K., Forbes, H. J., Douglas, I., Leon, D. A., & Smeeth, L. (2013). Representativeness and optimal use of body mass index (BMI) in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). BMJ Open, 3(9), e003669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mannion, R., & Braithwaite, J. (2012). Unintended consequences of performance measurement in healthcare: 20 salutary lessons from the English National Health Service. Internal Medicine, 42, 569–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rait, G., Walters, K., Griffin, M., Buszewicz, M., Petersen, I., & Nazareth, I. (2009). Recent trends in the incidence of recorded depression in primary. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 520–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Salomon, R. M., Urbano Blackford, J., Rosenbloom, S. T., Seidel, S., Wright Clayton, E., Dilts, D. M., et al. (2010). Research paper: Openness of patients’ reporting with use of electronic records: Psychiatric clinicians’ views. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17, 54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gray Weiskopf, N., & Weng, C. (2013). Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: Enabling reuse for clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 20, 144–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Salati, M., Brunelli, A., Dahan, M., Rocco, G., Van Raemdonck, D. E., & Varela, G. (2011). Task-independent metrics to assess the data quality of medical registries using the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) Database. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 40, 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kahn, M. G., Raebel, M. A., Glanz, J. M., Riedlinger, K., & Steiner, J. F. (2012). A pragmatic framework for single-site and multisite data quality assessment in electronic health record-based clinical research. Medical Care, 50, S21–S29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Herrett, E., Thomas, S. L., Schoonen, W. M., Smeeth, L., & Hall, A. J. (2010). Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: A systematic review. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 69, 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clinical Practice Research Datalink. http://www.cprd.com. Accessed May 2014.

  22. HM Treasury. (2011). Plan for growth. Available via GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221514/2011budget_growth.pdf. Accessed May 2014.

  23. Tate, A. R., Beloff, N., Al-Radwan, B., Wickson, J., Puri, S., Williams, T., et al. (2014). Exploiting the potential of large databases of electronic health records for research using rapid search algorithms and an intuitive query interface. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21, 292–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Woods, C. (2001). Impact of different definitions on estimates of accuracy of the diagnosis data in a clinical database. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54, 782–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wurst, K. E., Ephross, S. A., Loehr, J., Clark, D. W., & Guess, H. A. (2007). The utility of the general practice research database to examine selected congenital heart defects: A validation study. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 16, 867–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Harron, K., Wade, A., Gilbert, R., Muller-Pebody, B., & Goldstein, H. (2014). Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. TRANSFoRm. (2010). Website available at: http://www.transformproject.eu. Accessed May 2014.

  28. Khan, N. A., McGilchrist, M., Padmanabhan, S., van Staa, T., & Verheij, R. A. (2013). Deliverable 5.1: Data quality tool. NIVEL, University of Dundee, CPRD. Available via TRANSFoRm. http://transformproject.eu/Deliverables.html. Accessed May 2014.

  29. Leysen, P., Bastiaens, H., Van Royen, P., Agreus, L., & Andreasson, A. N. (2011). Development of use cases. University of Antwerp, Karolinska Institutet. Available via TRANSFoRm. http://transformproject.eu/D1.1Deliverable_List_files/Detailed Use cases_V2.1-2.pdf. Accessed May 2014.

  30. de Lusignan, S., Minmagh, C., Kennedy, J., Zeimet, M., Bommezijn, H., & Bryant, J. (2001). A survey to identify the clinical coding and classification systems currently in use across Europe. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 84, 86–89.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Boggon, R., Van Staa, T., Chapman, M., Gallagher, A. M., Hammad, T. A., & Richards, M. A. (2012). Cancer recording and mortality in the General Practice Research Database and linked cancer registries. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 22, 168–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Beral, V., & Peto, R. (2010). UK cancer survival statistics are misleading and make survival worse than it is. British Medical Journal, 341, c4112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Berkel, J. (1990). General practitioners and completeness of cancer registry. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 44, 121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schouten, L. J., Höppener, P., van den Brandt, P. A., Knottnerus, J. A., & Jager, J. J. (1993). Completeness of cancer registration in Limburg, The Netherlands. International Journal of Epidemiology, 22, 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Herret, E., Dinesh Shah, A., Boggon, R., Denaxas, S., Smeeth, L., Van Staa, T., et al. (2013). Completeness and diagnostic validity of recording acute myocardial infarction events in primary care, hospital care, disease registry, and national mortality records: Cohort study. British Medical Journal, 346, f2350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Weed, L. (1968). Medical records that guide and teach. New England Journal of Medicine, 278, 593–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bossen, C. (2007). Evaluation of a computerized problem-oriented medical record in a hospital department: Does it support daily clinical practice? International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76, 592–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kontopantelis, E., Buchan, I., Reeves, D., Checkland, K., & Doran, T. (2013). Relationship between quality of care and choice of clinical computing system: Retrospective analysis of family practice performance under the UK’s quality and outcomes framework. BMJ Open, 3, e003190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Reeves, D., Springate, D. A., Ashcroft, D. M., Ryan, R., Doran, T., Morris, R., et al. (2014). Can analyses of electronic patient records be independently and externally validated? The effect of statins on the mortality of patients with ischaemic heart disease: A cohort study with nested case–control analysis. BMJ Open, 4, e004952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. QResearch. Website available at: http://www.qresearch.org/. Accessed May 2014.

  41. Tate, A. R., Kalra, D., Boggon, R., Beloff, N., Puri, S., & Dungey, S., et al. (2014). Data quality in European primary care research databases. Report of a workshop sponsored by the CPRD in London September 2013. IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics (BHI), 2014, IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  42. García-Gil Mdel, M., Hermosilla, E., Prieto-Alhambra, D., Fina, F., Rosell, M., Ramos, R., et al. (2011). Construction and validation of a scoring system for the selection of high-quality data in a Spanish population primary care database (SIDIAP). Informatics in Primary Care, 19, 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bellika, J. G., Hasvold, T., & Hartviysen, G. (2007). Propagation of program control: A tool for distributed disease surveillance. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76, 313–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sáez, C., Martinez-Miranda, J., Robles, M., & Garcia-Gomez, J. M. (2012). Organizing data quality assessment of shifting biomedical data. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 180, 721–725.

    Google Scholar 

  45. PRIMIS (Primary Care Information Services). Website available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/primis/index.aspx. Accessed May 2014.

  46. Lagerqvist, B., James, S. K., Stenestrand, U., Lindbäck, J., Nilsson, T., & Wallentin, L. (2007). Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 1009–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Care.Data. Website available at: http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/thenhs/records/healthrecords/pages/care-data.aspx. Accessed May 2014.

  48. Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Website available at: http://omop.org/. Accessed May 2014.

  49. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. Website available at: http://www.ohdsi.org/. Accessed May 2014.

  50. Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance. Website available at: http://imeds.reaganudall.org/. Accessed May 2014.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QJ, UK

    Sheena Dungey, Natalia Beloff & A. Rosemary Tate

  2. MHRA, 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SZ, UK

    Sheena Dungey, Rachael Williams, Tim Williams & Shivani Puri

Authors
  1. Sheena Dungey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natalia Beloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachael Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tim Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shivani Puri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Rosemary Tate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheena Dungey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research and Technology, Hellas, Information Technologies Institute, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Alexia Briassouli

  2. Laboratoire Bordelais de Recherche en Informatique/University Bordeaux, Talence, France

    Jenny Benois-Pineau

  3. Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

    Alexander Hauptmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dungey, S., Beloff, N., Williams, R., Williams, T., Puri, S., Tate, A.R. (2015). Characterisation of Data Quality in Electronic Healthcare Records. In: Briassouli, A., Benois-Pineau, J., Hauptmann, A. (eds) Health Monitoring and Personalized Feedback using Multimedia Data. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17963-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17963-6_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17962-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17963-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation