Cited by 74Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsData Quality and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quality of data in the Manchester orthopaedic database.

Open access

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the completeness and accuracy of data in a computerised clinical information system (Manchester orthopaedic database) in comparison with the data available through the Hospital Activity Analysis. DESIGN: Retrospective review of case notes, computer data, and Hospital Activity Analysis data. SETTING: Orthopaedic unit in a district general hospital in Manchester. SUBJECTS: 200 random patient records distributed through the period of use of the computer system (1 October 1988 to 31 March 1990) and 121 records for random admissions between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990, 71 of which were included in the previous sample. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Conformity of the computer record key words and Hospital Activity Analysis codes to an ideal key word record and ideal code record drawn up by one investigator from the clinical notes; overall quality (completeness times accuracy). RESULTS: Overall completeness of the data in the orthopaedic database was 62% and the accuracy was 96%. Completeness improved after feedback to doctors on the use of key words in regular audit meetings. Completeness was higher in inpatient than outpatient records (69.9% v 53.7%, p less than 0.001) and when a new key word was required compared with missing and incorrect key words (both p less than 0.001). Completeness was lower when the key word was required of a senior registrar (p less than 0.05). Accuracy was not significantly different. The completeness of Hospital Activity Analysis data was 90.5% and accuracy 69.5%. Thus the overall data quality was similar in both systems. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a system designed for simple and efficient data capture, compliance by users was poor. Accuracy was high, suggesting that users understood the principles of data entry. Completeness of data capture can be improved by providing feedback to users on use of the system and performance. Improvements in future versions of the software should improve performance.

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmj.304.6820.159

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 74

Metadata

Authors
Barrie, J. L., & Marsh, D. R.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1992-01-18
Volume
304
Issue
6820
Pages
159-162
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2032696099
Cited by
74
References
13
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
17.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Quality and Management
Keywords
data quality, clinical information systems, hospital activity analysis, data completeness, data accuracy, user compliance, clinician feedback
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Electronic Data Processing, England, Feedback, Hospital Departments, Hospital Information Systems, Medical Audit, Orthopedics, Software, Databases, Factual

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