help button home button JAMIA Hate scrolling?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

First published October 26, 2006 as JAMIA PrePrint; doi:10.1197/jamia.M2198
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2007;14(1):10-15
© 2007 American Medical Informatics Association


A more recent version of this article appeared on January 1, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
M2198v1
14/1/10    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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tang, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Qureshi, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tang, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Qureshi, L.

Submitted on July 9, 2006
Accepted on October 11, 2006

Comparison of Methodologies for Calculating Quality Measures Based on Administrative Data Versus Clinical Data from an Electronic Health Record System: Implications for Performance Measures

Paul C. Tang MD, MS1*, Mary Ralston PhD2, Michelle Fernandez Arrigotti MPH2, Justin Graham MD, MS2, and Lubna Qureshi1

Affiliation of the authors: 1 Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, CA; 2 Lumetra, San Francisco, CA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

New reimbursement policies and pay-for-performance programs to reward providers for producing better outcomes are proliferating. Although electronic health record (EHR) systems could provide essential clinical data upon which to base quality measures, most metrics in use were derived from administrative claims data. We compared commonly used quality measures calculated from administrative data to those derived from clinical data in an EHR based on a random sample of 125 charts of Medicare patients with diabetes. Using standard definitions based on administrative data (which require two visits with an encounter diagnosis of diabetes during the measurement period), only 75% of diabetics determined by manually reviewing the EHR (the gold standard) were identified. In contrast, 97% of diabetics were identified using coded information in the EHR. The discrepancies in identified patients resulted in statistically significant differences in the quality measures for frequency of HbA1c testing, control of blood pressure, frequency of testing for urine protein, and frequency of eye exams for diabetic patients. New development of standardized quality measures should shift from claims-based measures to clinically based measures that can be derived from coded information in an EHR. Using data from EHRs will also leverage their clinical content without adding burden to the care process.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Qual Saf Health CareHome page
L Gunningberg, M F. Dahm, and A Ehrenberg
Accuracy in the recording of pressure ulcers and prevention after implementing an electronic health record in hospital care
Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2008; 17(4): 281 - 285.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
S. V.S. Pakhomov, P. L. Hanson, S. S. Bjornsen, and S. A. Smith
Automatic Classification of Foot Examination Findings Using Clinical Notes and Machine Learning
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., March 1, 2008; 15(2): 198 - 202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 1994 by the American Medical Informatics Association.