Cited by 151Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice

Open access
Hassey, Alan, Gerrett, David, Wilson, Ali·2001·BMJ

Abstract

Objective: To develop methods of measuring the validity and utility of electronic patient records in general practice. Design: A survey of the main functional areas of a practice and use of independent criteria to measure the validity of the practice database. Setting: A fully computerised general practice in Skipton, north Yorkshire. Subjects: The records of all registered practice patients. Main outcome measures: Validity of the main functional areas of the practice clinical system. Measures of the completeness, accuracy, validity, and utility of the morbidity data for 15 clinical diagnoses using recognised diagnostic standards to confirm diagnoses and identify further cases. Development of a method and statistical toolkit to validate clinical databases in general practice. Results: The practice electronic patient records were valid, complete, and accurate for prescribed items (99.7%), consultations (98.1%), laboratory tests (100%), hospital episodes (100%), and childhood immunisations (97%). The morbidity data for 15 clinical diagnoses were complete (mean sensitivity=87%) and accurate (mean positive predictive value=96%). The presence of the Read codes for the 15 diagnoses was strongly indicative of the true presence of those conditions (mean likelihood ratio=3917). New interpretations of descriptive statistics are described that can be used to estimate both the number of true cases that are unrecorded and quantify the benefits of validating a clinical database for coded entries. Conclusion: This study has developed a method and toolkit for measuring the validity and utility of general practice electronic patient records. What is already known on this topic: Delivering the performance management agenda in the NHS will depend on the availability of high quality information in general practice Record entries in GP systems generally consist of a mixture of text and Read coded entries Sensitivity and positive predictive value have been used to measure the completeness and accuracy of data recording in electronic patient record systems What this study adds: This study has developed a standard method and toolkit for measuring the validity and utility of electronic patient record systems The principal innovation in this study is to consider the Read codes in the records as tests for the true presence of the associated diagnoses This study has developed a new approach to the validation of electronic patient record systems.

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.322.7299.1401

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • 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”

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: 11

  1. Whitelaw FG, Nevin SL, Milne RM, Taylor RJ, Taylor MW, Watt AH. Com- pleteness and accuracy of morbidity and repeat prescribing records held on general practice computers in Scotland. Br J Gen Pract 1996;46:181-6.
  2. Whitelaw F, Nevin S, Taylor R, Watt A. Morbidity and prescribing patterns for the middle-aged population of Scotland. Br J Gen Pract 1996;46: 707-14.
  3. Mant J, Mant F, Winner S. How good is routine information? Validation of coding for acute stroke in Oxford hospitals. Health Trends 1997-8; 29(4):96-9.
  4. Pringle M, Ward P, Chilvers C. Assessment of the completeness and accu- racy of computer medical records in four practices committed to record- ing data on computer. Br J Gen Pract 1995;45:537-41.
  5. Wilson AE, Pollock C, Weekes T, Dowell A. Can general practice provide useful information?-Evaluation of a primary health care information project in northern England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49: 227-30.
  6. Pearson N, O'Brien J, Thomas H, Ewings P, Gallier L, Bussey A. Collect- ing morbidity data in general practice: the Somerset morbidity project. BMJ 1996;312:1517-20.
  7. Teasdale S, Bainbridge M. An adult learning model for improving infor- mation management in family practice. In: Cimino JJ, ed. Proceedings of the 1996 AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus, 1996.
  8. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994;308:1552.
  9. Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ 1994;309:102.
  10. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D. The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue. BMJ 1996;313:603-7.
  11. McWhinney IR. A Textbook of family medicine. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hassey, A., Gerrett, D., & Wilson, A.
Corresponding author
Hassey, Alan
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2001-06-09
Volume
322
Issue
7299
Pages
1401-1405
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2152426815
Cited by
151
References
3
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
32.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
electronic health records, general practice, Read codes, morbidity data, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and positive predictive value
MeSH terms
England, Family Practice, Humans, Morbidity, Sensitivity and Specificity, Likelihood Functions, Databases, Factual, Medical Records Systems, Computerized

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