Abstract
Objective To assess the frequency of digit preference in recording of vital signs in electronic healthcare records (EHRs) and associated patient and hospital factors.
Study Design and Setting We used EHR data from Oxford University Hospitals, UK, between 01-January-2016 and 30-June-2019 and multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between temperature readings of 36.0°C or systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) readings both ending in zero and patient age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, comorbidities, calendar time, hour of day, days into admission, hospital, day of week and speciality.
Results In 4,305,914 records from 143,352 patients, there was an excess of temperature readings of 36.0°C (15.1%, 649,976/4,305,914), compared to an expected 4.9% from the underlying distribution. 2.2% (95,215) BP readings had a SBP and DBP both ending in zero vs. 1% expected by chance. Digit preference was more common in older and male patients, as length of stay increased, following a previous normal set of vital signs and typically more common in medical vs. surgical specialities. Differences were seen between hospitals, however, digit preference reduced over calendar time.
Conclusion Vital signs may not always be accurately documented. Allowances and adjustments may be needed in observational analyses using these factors as outcomes or exposures.
Key findings
▪ Digit preference in the recording of vital signs in electronic healthcare records is common, affecting approximately 10% of temperature measurements and 1% of blood pressure recordings in a large UK teaching hospital group
▪ These findings were obtained in hospitals using a semi-automated data capture system that required manual re-entry of vital signs into a tablet computer prior to automated upload to electronic patient records
▪ Digit preference was associated with patient characteristics and was more common in older and male patients, as length of stay increased and following previously normal vital signs
▪ Digit preference varied between hospitals, but decreased over time
▪ Digit preference was generally more common in medical compared to surgical specialties
What this adds to what is known
▪ Most previous studies of data quality in electronic patient records have focused on the accuracy of coding
▪ This study focuses on the accuracy of numeric values in patient records, and also adds new data on patient and hospital factors associated with the accuracy of values in electronic patient records
Implications
▪ Clinicians and researchers need to be aware that vital signs may not always be accurately documented
▪ Appropriate allowances and adjustments for digit preference should be considered in observational analyses using these factors as outcomes or exposures.
▪ Further work is required to understand the mechanisms behind values preference on a systems, patient and clinician level
Competing Interest Statement
DWE declares lecture fees from Gilead outside the submitted work. No other author has a conflict of interest to declare.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency (NIHR200915), and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford. DWE is a Big Data Institute Robertson Fellow. ASW is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or the UK Health Security Agency. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
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:
Deidentified data were obtained from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database which has approvals from the National Research Ethics Service South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0403), the Health Research Authority and the national Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0144)
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, 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