Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems

John W. Peabody, Jeff Luck, Sharad Jain, Dan Bertenthal, Peter Glassman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

169 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Administrative data play a central role in health care. Inaccuracies in such data are costly to health systems, they obscure health research, and they affect the quality of patient care. Objectives: We sought to prospectively determine the accuracy of the primary and secondary diagnoses recorded in administrative data sets. Research Design: Between March and July 2002, standardized patients (SPs) completed unannounced visits at 3 sites. We abstracted the 348 medical records from these visits to obtain the written diagnoses made by physicians. We also examined the patient files to identify the diagnoses recorded on the administrative encounter forms and extracted data from the computerized administrative databases. Because the correct diagnosis was defined by the SP visit, we could determine whether the final diagnosis in the administrative data set was correct and, if not, whether it was caused by physician diagnostic error, missing encounter forms, or incorrectly filled out forms. Subjects: General internal medicine outpatient clinics at 2 Veterans Administration facilities and a large, private medical center participated in this study. Measures: A total of 45 trained SPs presented to physicians with 4 common outpatient conditions. Results: The correct primary diagnosis was recorded for 57% of visits. Thirteen percent of errors were caused by physician diagnostic error, 8% to missing encounter forms, and 22% to incorrectly entered data. Findings varied by condition and site but not by level of training. Accuracy of secondary diagnosis data (27%) was even poorer. Conclusions: Although more research is needed to evaluate the cause of inaccuracies and the relative contributions of patient, provider, and system level effects, it appears that significant inaccuracies in administrative data are common. Interventions aimed at correcting these errors appear feasible.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1066-1072
Number of pages7
JournalMedical Care
Volume42
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Information Systems
Physicians
Diagnostic Errors
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Quality of Health Care
Health
Internal Medicine
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Data Accuracy
Research
Medical Records
Patient Care
Research Design
Outpatients
Databases
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • Administrative data
  • Diagnostic errors
  • Medical informatics
  • Medical records/standards
  • Quality of care
  • Standardized patients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems. / Peabody, John W.; Luck, Jeff; Jain, Sharad; Bertenthal, Dan; Glassman, Peter.

In: Medical Care, Vol. 42, No. 11, 01.01.2004, p. 1066-1072.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peabody, John W. ; Luck, Jeff ; Jain, Sharad ; Bertenthal, Dan ; Glassman, Peter. / Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems. In: Medical Care. 2004 ; Vol. 42, No. 11. pp. 1066-1072.
@article{54c775a8731e43ff9336e16f61e1e818,
title = "Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems",
abstract = "Background: Administrative data play a central role in health care. Inaccuracies in such data are costly to health systems, they obscure health research, and they affect the quality of patient care. Objectives: We sought to prospectively determine the accuracy of the primary and secondary diagnoses recorded in administrative data sets. Research Design: Between March and July 2002, standardized patients (SPs) completed unannounced visits at 3 sites. We abstracted the 348 medical records from these visits to obtain the written diagnoses made by physicians. We also examined the patient files to identify the diagnoses recorded on the administrative encounter forms and extracted data from the computerized administrative databases. Because the correct diagnosis was defined by the SP visit, we could determine whether the final diagnosis in the administrative data set was correct and, if not, whether it was caused by physician diagnostic error, missing encounter forms, or incorrectly filled out forms. Subjects: General internal medicine outpatient clinics at 2 Veterans Administration facilities and a large, private medical center participated in this study. Measures: A total of 45 trained SPs presented to physicians with 4 common outpatient conditions. Results: The correct primary diagnosis was recorded for 57{\%} of visits. Thirteen percent of errors were caused by physician diagnostic error, 8{\%} to missing encounter forms, and 22{\%} to incorrectly entered data. Findings varied by condition and site but not by level of training. Accuracy of secondary diagnosis data (27{\%}) was even poorer. Conclusions: Although more research is needed to evaluate the cause of inaccuracies and the relative contributions of patient, provider, and system level effects, it appears that significant inaccuracies in administrative data are common. Interventions aimed at correcting these errors appear feasible.",
keywords = "Administrative data, Diagnostic errors, Medical informatics, Medical records/standards, Quality of care, Standardized patients",
author = "Peabody, {John W.} and Jeff Luck and Sharad Jain and Dan Bertenthal and Peter Glassman",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00005650-200411000-00005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1066--1072",
journal = "Medical Care",
issn = "0025-7079",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the accuracy of administrative data in health information systems

AU - Peabody, John W.

AU - Luck, Jeff

AU - Jain, Sharad

AU - Bertenthal, Dan

AU - Glassman, Peter

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Background: Administrative data play a central role in health care. Inaccuracies in such data are costly to health systems, they obscure health research, and they affect the quality of patient care. Objectives: We sought to prospectively determine the accuracy of the primary and secondary diagnoses recorded in administrative data sets. Research Design: Between March and July 2002, standardized patients (SPs) completed unannounced visits at 3 sites. We abstracted the 348 medical records from these visits to obtain the written diagnoses made by physicians. We also examined the patient files to identify the diagnoses recorded on the administrative encounter forms and extracted data from the computerized administrative databases. Because the correct diagnosis was defined by the SP visit, we could determine whether the final diagnosis in the administrative data set was correct and, if not, whether it was caused by physician diagnostic error, missing encounter forms, or incorrectly filled out forms. Subjects: General internal medicine outpatient clinics at 2 Veterans Administration facilities and a large, private medical center participated in this study. Measures: A total of 45 trained SPs presented to physicians with 4 common outpatient conditions. Results: The correct primary diagnosis was recorded for 57% of visits. Thirteen percent of errors were caused by physician diagnostic error, 8% to missing encounter forms, and 22% to incorrectly entered data. Findings varied by condition and site but not by level of training. Accuracy of secondary diagnosis data (27%) was even poorer. Conclusions: Although more research is needed to evaluate the cause of inaccuracies and the relative contributions of patient, provider, and system level effects, it appears that significant inaccuracies in administrative data are common. Interventions aimed at correcting these errors appear feasible.

AB - Background: Administrative data play a central role in health care. Inaccuracies in such data are costly to health systems, they obscure health research, and they affect the quality of patient care. Objectives: We sought to prospectively determine the accuracy of the primary and secondary diagnoses recorded in administrative data sets. Research Design: Between March and July 2002, standardized patients (SPs) completed unannounced visits at 3 sites. We abstracted the 348 medical records from these visits to obtain the written diagnoses made by physicians. We also examined the patient files to identify the diagnoses recorded on the administrative encounter forms and extracted data from the computerized administrative databases. Because the correct diagnosis was defined by the SP visit, we could determine whether the final diagnosis in the administrative data set was correct and, if not, whether it was caused by physician diagnostic error, missing encounter forms, or incorrectly filled out forms. Subjects: General internal medicine outpatient clinics at 2 Veterans Administration facilities and a large, private medical center participated in this study. Measures: A total of 45 trained SPs presented to physicians with 4 common outpatient conditions. Results: The correct primary diagnosis was recorded for 57% of visits. Thirteen percent of errors were caused by physician diagnostic error, 8% to missing encounter forms, and 22% to incorrectly entered data. Findings varied by condition and site but not by level of training. Accuracy of secondary diagnosis data (27%) was even poorer. Conclusions: Although more research is needed to evaluate the cause of inaccuracies and the relative contributions of patient, provider, and system level effects, it appears that significant inaccuracies in administrative data are common. Interventions aimed at correcting these errors appear feasible.

KW - Administrative data

KW - Diagnostic errors

KW - Medical informatics

KW - Medical records/standards

KW - Quality of care

KW - Standardized patients

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=8144221907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=8144221907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005650-200411000-00005

DO - 10.1097/00005650-200411000-00005

M3 - Article

C2 - 15586833

AN - SCOPUS:8144221907

VL - 42

SP - 1066

EP - 1072

JO - Medical Care

JF - Medical Care

SN - 0025-7079

IS - 11

ER -