Cited by 260Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationData Quality and Management

A Pragmatic Framework for Single-Site and Multisite Data Quality Assessment in Electronic Health Record-Based Clinical Research

Open access
Kahn, Michael G., Raebel, Marsha A., Glanz, Jason M., Riedlinger, Karen, Steiner, John F.·2012·Medical Care

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Answers to clinical and public health research questions increasingly require aggregated data from multiple sites. Data from electronic health records and other clinical sources are useful for such studies, but require stringent quality assessment. Data quality assessment is particularly important in multisite studies to distinguish true variations in care from data quality problems. METHODS: We propose a "fit-for-use" conceptual model for data quality assessment and a process model for planning and conducting single-site and multisite data quality assessments. These approaches are illustrated using examples from prior multisite studies. APPROACH: Critical components of multisite data quality assessment include: thoughtful prioritization of variables and data quality dimensions for assessment; development and use of standardized approaches to data quality assessment that can improve data utility over time; iterative cycles of assessment within and between sites; targeting assessment toward data domains known to be vulnerable to quality problems; and detailed documentation of the rationale and outcomes of data quality assessments to inform data users. The assessment process requires constant communication between site-level data providers, data coordinating centers, and principal investigators. DISCUSSION: A conceptually based and systematically executed approach to data quality assessment is essential to achieve the potential of the electronic revolution in health care. High-quality data allow "learning health care organizations" to analyze and act on their own information, to compare their outcomes to peers, and to address critical scientific questions from the population perspective.

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 · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e318257dd67

Cites

39 of 39 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: 2

  1. [22]Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Generalized Review of OSCAR Unified Checking 2011 Available at: http://omop.fnih.org/GROUCH Accessed July 31, 2011
  2. [45]Riain C Helfert M An evaluation of data quality related problems patterns in healthcare information systems Paper presented at: Lisbon, Portugal IADIS virtual multi conference on computer science and information systems 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kahn, M. G., Raebel, M. A., Glanz, J. M., Riedlinger, K., & Steiner, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (US)
Corresponding author
Kahn, Michael G.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2012-07
Volume
50
Pages
S21-S29
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134256069
Cited by
260
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 4
FWCI
33.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1r01hs019912-01, 1R01HS019908, R01HS019908, R01HS019912)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025780)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
Keywords
data quality assessment, electronic health records, data quality dimensions, data coordinating center, data utility, data prioritization
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Medical Informatics, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, United States, Patient-Centered Care, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Electronic Health Records

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