help button home button JAMIA Bigger figures
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published October 5, 2003 as JAMIA PrePrint; doi:10.1197/jamia.M1362
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M1362v1
11/1/78    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Porcheret, M.
Right arrow Articles by Croft, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Porcheret, M.
Right arrow Articles by Croft, P.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:78-86. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M1362.
© 2004 American Medical Informatics Association

Research paper

Data Quality of General Practice Electronic Health Records: The Impact of a Program of Assessments, Feedback, and Training

Mark Porcheret, MBBS, Rhian Hughes, MLitt, Dai Evans, MBBS, Kelvin Jordan, PHD, Tracy Whitehurst, Helen Ogden, BSc and Peter Croft, MD on behalf of the North Staffordshire General Practice Research Network

Affiliation of the authors: Primary Care Sciences Research Centre, Keele University, UK

Correspondence and reprints: Mark Porcheret, MBBS, Primary Care Sciences Research Centre, Keele University, Keele, Staffs ST5 5BG, United Kingdom; e-mail: <m.porcheret{at}keele.ac.uk>.

Received for publication: 03/13/03; accepted for publication: 09/17/03.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a program of repeated assessments, feedback, and training on the quality of coded clinical data in general practice.

Design: A prospective uncontrolled intervention study was conducted in a general practice research network.

Measurements: Percentage of recorded consultations with a coded problem title and percentage of patients receiving a specific drug (e.g., tamoxifen) who had the relevant morbidity code (e.g., breast cancer) were calculated. Annual period prevalence of 12 selected morbidities was compared with parallel data derived from the fourth National Study of Morbidity Statistics from General Practice (MSGP4).

Results: The first two measures showed variation between practices at baseline, but on repeat assessments all practices improved or maintained their levels of coding. The period prevalence figures also were variable, but over time rates increased to levels comparable with, or above, MSGP4 rates. Practices were able to provide time and resources for feedback and training sessions.

Conclusion: A program of repeated assessments, feedback, and training appears to improve data quality in a range of practices. The program is likely to be generalizable to other practices but needs a trained support team to implement it that has implications for cost and resources.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Medical Informatics Association.