Using Electronic Health Records to Measure Physician Performance for Acute Conditions in Primary Care: Empirical Evaluation of the Community-Acquired Pneumonia Clinical Quality Measure Set
Abstract
Background Electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to facilitate performance measurement for acute conditions. Objective To evaluate the reliability and feasibility-of-use of a performance measure set for community-acquired pneumonia in an ambulatory EHR. Design Retrospective, cross-sectional electronic chart review. Setting Primary Care Clinics. Patients Adults with an administrative claims diagnosis of pneumonia during a 14-month period. Measurements Two reviewers independently examined data in the EHR to determine if (1) the encounter was a visit for acute pneumonia; (2) there was documentation for each of 12 performance measures; and (3) such information was in coded form. Results Of 688 encounters with a claim diagnosis of pneumonia, 210 (31%) were identified by either reviewer as a primary care acute pneumonia visit. The 2 reviewers agreed that 198 encounters to 71 different clinicians were visits for acute pneumonia [kappa, 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.93-0.98]. Measure performance ranged from 10% for providing location of care rationale to 91% for documenting blood pressure, averaging 52% across all 12 measures. Inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.66 (95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for providing a location of care rationale to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.91-1.0) for vital sign assessment. The proportion of data that was in coded form ranged from 0% for mental status, hydration status, chest x-ray performance, and location of care to 100% for medications and immunizatio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Other methods for assessing completeness included agreement between elements from the same source, agreement between the EHR and paper records, agreement between the EHR and another electronic source, and comparing distributions of occurrences between practices or with nationally recorded rates.
“Other methods for assessing completeness included looking at agreement between elements from the same source,49–55 56 agreement between the EHR and paper records,79 87 88 agreement between the EHR and another electronic source of data,79 89 and comparing distributions of occurrences of certain elements between practices97 or with nationally recorded rates.98–100”
From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [49]
Cites
The GAAP in Quality Measurement and Reporting
Pronovost, P. J., Miller, M., & Wachter, R. M. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.15.1800 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681 · Cited by 1,216 · see citing works
Chan, K. S., Fowles, J. B., & Weiner, J. P. (2010) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558709359007 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use
Weiskopf, N. G., Hripcsak, G., Swaminathan, S., & Weng, C. (2013) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.06.010 · Cited by 367 · see citing works
- Authors
- Linder, J. A., Kaleba, E. O., & Kmetik, K. S.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- American Medical Association (US)
- Corresponding author
- Linder, Jeffrey A.
- ORCID
- Linder, Jeffrey A.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-216
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2038049252
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 10.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS014563)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- electronic health records, physician performance measurement, community-acquired pneumonia, acute conditions, primary care, inter-rater reliability, outpatient care, clinical documentation, coded data, vital signs, quality of care
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Adult, Aged, Boston, Cross-Sectional Studies, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Community-Acquired Infections, Pneumonia, Bacterial, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence
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