RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Assessing the quality of clinical and administrative data extracted from hospitals: The General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) experience
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.03.16.20036962
DO 10.1101/2020.03.16.20036962
A1 Pasricha, Sachin V.
A1 Jung, Hae Young
A1 Kushnir, Vladyslav
A1 Mak, Denise
A1 Koppula, Radha
A1 Guo, Yishan
A1 Kwan, Janice L.
A1 Lapointe-Shaw, Lauren
A1 Rawal, Shail
A1 Tang, Terence
A1 Weinerman, Adina
A1 Razak, Fahad
A1 Verma, Amol A.
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/18/2020.03.16.20036962.abstract
AB Objective Large clinical databases are increasingly being used for research and quality improvement, but there remains uncertainty about how computational and manual approaches can be used together to assess and improve the quality of extracted data. The General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) database extracts and standardizes a broad range of data from clinical and administrative hospital data systems, including information about attending physicians, room transfers, laboratory tests, diagnostic imaging reports, and outcomes such as death in-hospital. We describe computational data quality assessment and manual data validation techniques that were used for GEMINI.Methods The GEMINI database currently contains 245,559 General Internal Medicine patient admissions at 7 hospital sites in Ontario, Canada from 2010-2017. We performed 7 computational data quality checks followed by manual validation of 23,419 selected data points on a sample of 7,488 patients across participating hospitals. After iteratively re-extracting data as needed based on the computational data quality checks, we manually validated GEMINI data against the data that could be obtained using the hospital’s electronic medical record (i.e. the data clinicians would see when providing care), which we considered the gold standard. We calculated accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of GEMINI data.Results Computational checks identified multiple data quality issues – for example, the inclusion of cancelled radiology tests, a time shift of transfusion data, and mistakenly processing the symbol for sodium, “Na”, as a missing value. Manual data validation revealed that GEMINI data were ultimately highly reliable compared to the gold standard across nearly all data tables. One important data quality issue was identified by manual validation that was not detected by computational checks, which was that the dates and times of blood transfusion data at one site were not reliable. This resulted in low sensitivity (66%) and positive predictive value (75%) for blood transfusion data at that site. Apart from this single issue, GEMINI data were highly reliable across all data tables, with high overall accuracy (ranging from 98-100%), sensitivity (95-100%), specificity (99-100%), positive predictive value (93-100%), and negative predictive value (99-100%) compared to the gold standard.Discussion and Conclusion Iterative assessment and improvement of data quality based primarily on computational checks permitted highly reliable extraction of multisite clinical and administrative data. Computational checks identified nearly all of the data quality issues in this initiative but one critical quality issue was only identified during manual validation. Combining computational checks and manual validation may be the optimal method for assessing and improving the quality of large multi-site clinical databases.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) was supported by grants from the Green Shield Canada Foundation and the University of Toronto Division of General Internal Medicine. This study was supported by grant SMH-17-007 from the St. Michaels Hospital Medical Services Association Innovation Fund. Amol Verma is supported by funding from the Eliot Phillipson Clinician-Scientist Training Program, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data used to create this manuscript is available in the GEMINI database.