Cargando…
A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data
OBJECTIVE: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AcademyHealth
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713905 http://dx.doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1244 |
_version_ | 1782458104309350400 |
---|---|
author | Kahn, Michael G. Callahan, Tiffany J. Barnard, Juliana Bauck, Alan E. Brown, Jeff Davidson, Bruce N. Estiri, Hossein Goerg, Carsten Holve, Erin Johnson, Steven G. Liaw, Siaw-Teng Hamilton-Lopez, Marianne Meeker, Daniella Ong, Toan C. Ryan, Patrick Shang, Ning Weiskopf, Nicole G. Weng, Chunhua Zozus, Meredith N. Schilling, Lisa |
author_facet | Kahn, Michael G. Callahan, Tiffany J. Barnard, Juliana Bauck, Alan E. Brown, Jeff Davidson, Bruce N. Estiri, Hossein Goerg, Carsten Holve, Erin Johnson, Steven G. Liaw, Siaw-Teng Hamilton-Lopez, Marianne Meeker, Daniella Ong, Toan C. Ryan, Patrick Shang, Ning Weiskopf, Nicole G. Weng, Chunhua Zozus, Meredith N. Schilling, Lisa |
author_sort | Kahn, Michael G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmonized to a comprehensive unified terminology with definitions and examples and organized into a conceptual framework to support a common approach to defining whether EHR data is ‘fit’ for specific uses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DQ publications, informatics and analytics experts, managers of established DQ programs, and operational manuals from several mature EHR-based research networks were reviewed to identify potential DQ terms and categories. Two face-to-face stakeholder meetings were used to vet an initial set of DQ terms and definitions that were grouped into an overall conceptual framework. Feedback received from data producers and users was used to construct a draft set of harmonized DQ terms and categories. Multiple rounds of iterative refinement resulted in a set of terms and organizing framework consisting of DQ categories, subcategories, terms, definitions, and examples. The harmonized terminology and logical framework’s inclusiveness was evaluated against ten published DQ terminologies. RESULTS: Existing DQ terms were harmonized and organized into a framework by defining three DQ categories: (1) Conformance (2) Completeness and (3) Plausibility and two DQ assessment contexts: (1) Verification and (2) Validation. Conformance and Plausibility categories were further divided into subcategories. Each category and subcategory was defined with respect to whether the data may be verified with organizational data, or validated against an accepted gold standard, depending on proposed context and uses. The coverage of the harmonized DQ terminology was validated by successfully aligning to multiple published DQ terminologies. DISCUSSION: Existing DQ concepts, community input, and expert review informed the development of a distinct set of terms, organized into categories and subcategories. The resulting DQ terms successfully encompassed a wide range of disparate DQ terminologies. Operational definitions were developed to provide guidance for implementing DQ assessment procedures. The resulting structure is an inclusive DQ framework for standardizing DQ assessment and reporting. While our analysis focused on the DQ issues often found in EHR data, the new terminology may be applicable to a wide range of electronic health data such as administrative, research, and patient-reported data. CONCLUSION: A consistent, common DQ terminology, organized into a logical framework, is an initial step in enabling data owners and users, patients, and policy makers to evaluate and communicate data quality findings in a well-defined manner with a shared vocabulary. Future work will leverage the framework and terminology to develop reusable data quality assessment and reporting methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5051581 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | AcademyHealth |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50515812016-10-06 A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data Kahn, Michael G. Callahan, Tiffany J. Barnard, Juliana Bauck, Alan E. Brown, Jeff Davidson, Bruce N. Estiri, Hossein Goerg, Carsten Holve, Erin Johnson, Steven G. Liaw, Siaw-Teng Hamilton-Lopez, Marianne Meeker, Daniella Ong, Toan C. Ryan, Patrick Shang, Ning Weiskopf, Nicole G. Weng, Chunhua Zozus, Meredith N. Schilling, Lisa EGEMS (Wash DC) Articles OBJECTIVE: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmonized to a comprehensive unified terminology with definitions and examples and organized into a conceptual framework to support a common approach to defining whether EHR data is ‘fit’ for specific uses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DQ publications, informatics and analytics experts, managers of established DQ programs, and operational manuals from several mature EHR-based research networks were reviewed to identify potential DQ terms and categories. Two face-to-face stakeholder meetings were used to vet an initial set of DQ terms and definitions that were grouped into an overall conceptual framework. Feedback received from data producers and users was used to construct a draft set of harmonized DQ terms and categories. Multiple rounds of iterative refinement resulted in a set of terms and organizing framework consisting of DQ categories, subcategories, terms, definitions, and examples. The harmonized terminology and logical framework’s inclusiveness was evaluated against ten published DQ terminologies. RESULTS: Existing DQ terms were harmonized and organized into a framework by defining three DQ categories: (1) Conformance (2) Completeness and (3) Plausibility and two DQ assessment contexts: (1) Verification and (2) Validation. Conformance and Plausibility categories were further divided into subcategories. Each category and subcategory was defined with respect to whether the data may be verified with organizational data, or validated against an accepted gold standard, depending on proposed context and uses. The coverage of the harmonized DQ terminology was validated by successfully aligning to multiple published DQ terminologies. DISCUSSION: Existing DQ concepts, community input, and expert review informed the development of a distinct set of terms, organized into categories and subcategories. The resulting DQ terms successfully encompassed a wide range of disparate DQ terminologies. Operational definitions were developed to provide guidance for implementing DQ assessment procedures. The resulting structure is an inclusive DQ framework for standardizing DQ assessment and reporting. While our analysis focused on the DQ issues often found in EHR data, the new terminology may be applicable to a wide range of electronic health data such as administrative, research, and patient-reported data. CONCLUSION: A consistent, common DQ terminology, organized into a logical framework, is an initial step in enabling data owners and users, patients, and policy makers to evaluate and communicate data quality findings in a well-defined manner with a shared vocabulary. Future work will leverage the framework and terminology to develop reusable data quality assessment and reporting methods. AcademyHealth 2016-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5051581/ /pubmed/27713905 http://dx.doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1244 Text en All eGEMs publications are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Articles Kahn, Michael G. Callahan, Tiffany J. Barnard, Juliana Bauck, Alan E. Brown, Jeff Davidson, Bruce N. Estiri, Hossein Goerg, Carsten Holve, Erin Johnson, Steven G. Liaw, Siaw-Teng Hamilton-Lopez, Marianne Meeker, Daniella Ong, Toan C. Ryan, Patrick Shang, Ning Weiskopf, Nicole G. Weng, Chunhua Zozus, Meredith N. Schilling, Lisa A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data |
title | A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data |
title_full | A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data |
title_fullStr | A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data |
title_full_unstemmed | A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data |
title_short | A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data |
title_sort | harmonized data quality assessment terminology and framework for the secondary use of electronic health record data |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051581/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713905 http://dx.doi.org/10.13063/2327-9214.1244 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kahnmichaelg aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT callahantiffanyj aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT barnardjuliana aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT bauckalane aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT brownjeff aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT davidsonbrucen aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT estirihossein aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT goergcarsten aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT holveerin aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT johnsonsteveng aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT liawsiawteng aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT hamiltonlopezmarianne aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT meekerdaniella aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT ongtoanc aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT ryanpatrick aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT shangning aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT weiskopfnicoleg aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT wengchunhua aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT zozusmeredithn aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT schillinglisa aharmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT kahnmichaelg harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT callahantiffanyj harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT barnardjuliana harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT bauckalane harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT brownjeff harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT davidsonbrucen harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT estirihossein harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT goergcarsten harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT holveerin harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT johnsonsteveng harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT liawsiawteng harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT hamiltonlopezmarianne harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT meekerdaniella harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT ongtoanc harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT ryanpatrick harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT shangning harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT weiskopfnicoleg harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT wengchunhua harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT zozusmeredithn harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata AT schillinglisa harmonizeddataqualityassessmentterminologyandframeworkforthesecondaryuseofelectronichealthrecorddata |