Cited by 75Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentMedical Coding and Health InformationSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Validity of incident opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnoses in administrative data: a chart verification study.

Open access
Howell, Benjamin A., Abel, Erica A., Park, Dongchan, Edmond, Sara N., Leisch, Leah J., Becker, William C.·2021·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background An important strategy to address the opioid overdose epidemic involves identifying people at elevated risk of overdose, particularly those with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, it is unclear to what degree OUD diagnoses in administrative data are inaccurate.Objective To estimate the prevalence of inaccurate diagnoses of OUD among patients with incident OUD diagnoses.Subjects A random sample of 90 patients with incident OUD diagnoses associated with an index in-person encounter between October 1, 2016, and June 1, 2018, in three Veterans Health Administration medical centers.Design Direct chart review of all encounter notes, referrals, prescriptions, and laboratory values within a 120-day window before and after the index encounter. Using all available chart data, we determined whether the diagnosis of OUD was likely accurate, likely inaccurate, or of indeterminate accuracy. We then performed a bivariate analysis to assess demographic or clinical characteristics associated with likely inaccurate diagnoses.Key results We identified 1337 veterans with incident OUD diagnoses. In the chart verification subsample, we assessed 26 (29%) OUD diagnoses as likely inaccurate; 20 due to systems error and 6 due to clinical error; additionally, 8 had insufficient information to determine accuracy. Veterans with likely inaccurate diagnoses were more likely to be younger and prescribed opioids for pain. Clinical settings associated with likely inaccurate diagnoses were non-mental health clinical settings, group visits, and non-patient care settings.Conclusions Our study identified significant levels of likely inaccurate OUD diagnoses among veterans with incident OUD diagnoses. The majority of these cases reflected readily addressable systems errors. The smaller proportion due to clinical errors and those with insufficient documentation may be addressed by increased training for clinicians. If these inaccuracies are prevalent throughout the VHA, they could complicate health services research and health systems responses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-020-06339-3

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Blumenthal D, McGinnis JM. Measuring Vital Signs: an IOM report on core metrics for health and health care progress. JAMA. 2015 May 19;313(19):1901-2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howell, B. A., Abel, E. A., Park, D., Edmond, S. N., Leisch, L. J., & Becker, W. C.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Howell, Benjamin A.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2020-11-11
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
1264-1270
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W3105791171
Cited by
75
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8
FWCI
7.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUE PII 18-180)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (5K12DA033312)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
opioid use disorder, diagnostic accuracy, administrative data validity, medical records review, veterans, opioid overdose epidemic, medical errors, Veterans Health Administration
MeSH terms
Analgesics, Opioid, Humans, Opioid-Related Disorders, Pain, Veterans, Drug Overdose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review