CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Measuring the Completeness and Currency of Codified Clinical Information

Williams, J. G.·2003·Methods of Information in Medicine
DOI 10.1055/s-0038-1634243
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The paper describes how an objective score (CCscore) of the 'completeness' and 'currency' of codified clinical information relevant to the management of diabetes mellitus may be derived for individual practices. Methods A questionnaire was developed and administered to 35 practices and statistical methods were used to test for correlation between the prevalence for diabetes mellitus and the relevant CCscores Results No significant correlation could be found. Conclusions The 'quality' of computer-stored information varies widely across English General practices for reasons that are incompletely understood. We demonstrated how CCscores may be calibrated for different 'views' of 'relevance', 'completeness', and 'currency' and yet be consistent across practices for a given 'view'. The potential value of this score and how it may contribute to our understanding of variation in 'information quality' are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-0038-1634243

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Williams, J. G.
Affiliations
University of Surrey (GB)
Corresponding author
Williams, J. G.
Venue
Methods of Information in Medicine
Publisher
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Published
2003
Volume
42
Issue
04
Pages
482-488
ISSN
  • 0026-1270 (ISSN-L)
  • 2511-705X
DOI
10.1055/s-0038-1634243
OpenAlex
W2410583883
Cited by
18
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Methods of Information in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, clinical information quality, electronic health records, general practice, data completeness, data currency
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Family Practice, United Kingdom, Humans, Medical Records, Problem-Oriented, Primary Health Care, Quality Control, Surveys and Questionnaires, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Benchmarking

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