Cargando…
Detecting Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network: First Steps
BACKGROUND: A recent feasibility assessment of quality indicators for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (NVAF/AFL) identified the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network, a national outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) system, as a data source for measurement. As a fir...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2020.10.012 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: A recent feasibility assessment of quality indicators for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (NVAF/AFL) identified the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network, a national outpatient electronic medical record (EMR) system, as a data source for measurement. As a first step, we adapted and validated an existing EMR case definition. METHODS: A diagnosis of NVAF/AFL was defined using International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes (427.3) in either the physician billing, encounter diagnosis, or health condition fields. We identified all presumed cases in a single clinical site with the algorithm and selected a random sample of those who were presumed NVAF/AFL negative with the same algorithm. A chart audit diagnosis of “definite” NVAF/AFL was confirmed by electrocardiogram and nonvalvular diagnosis confirmed after echocardiogram, attending physician, or specialist letter review. To demonstrate face validity, clinical characteristics were compared for patients with and without NVAF/AFL. RESULTS: The case definition identified a possible 184 patients with and 184 without NVAF/AFL. The case validation resulted in a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 100-100), specificity of 84.3% (95% CI, 78.8-89.9), and positive and negative predictive value of 74.7% (95% CI, 66.4-83.2) and 100% (95% CI 100-100), respectively. Patients with NVAF/AFL were older (63 vs 42 years) and had a higher proportion of cardiovascular comorbidities and relevant medications. CONCLUSIONS: We think it is possible that with further validation work, NVAF/AFL can be accurately identified using this large pan-Canadian EMR system and used as a future tool to measure quality of care in the outpatient setting. |
---|