ABSTRACT
Objective To characterize clinical value set issues and identify common patterns of errors.
Materials and Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 26 value set experts and performed root cause analyses of errors identified in electronic health records (EHRs). We also analyzed a random sample of user-reported issues from the Value Set Authority Center (VSAC), developing a categorization scheme for value set errors. Additionally, we audited medication value sets from three sources and assessed the impact of value set variations on a clinical quality measure within Vanderbilt’s Epic system.
Results Interviews highlighted ongoing difficulties in value set identification, creation, and maintenance, with significant consequences for clinical decision support (CDS), quality measurement, and patient care. Content analysis indicated that 42% of errors involved missing codes, 14% included extraneous codes, and 40% arose from misinterpretations of value set intent; 72% of these errors were present at creation. The audit revealed errors in 50% of medication value sets, predominantly omissions. The impact analysis demonstrated that value set selection altered a clinical quality measure’s outcome by 3- to 30-fold.
Discussion Value set errors are widespread and arise from a delineable set of causes. Characterizing patterns of errors allowed us to identify best practices and potential solutions to minimize their frequency.
Conclusion Better tools for finding, authoring, auditing and monitoring value sets are urgently needed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number 5R01LM013995-02. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos