A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 [53]
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
Statistics Notes: Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6947.102 · Cited by 1,711 · see citing works
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412985659 · Cited by 1,462 · see citing works
Real world data—retrieval and validation of consultation data from four general practices
Neal, R. D., Heywood, P. L., & Morley, S. (1996) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/13.5.455 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ 1994;308:1552.
- Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. BMJ 1994;309:102.
- Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D. The statistical basis of public policy: a paradigm shift is overdue. BMJ 1996;313:603-7.
- McWhinney IR. A Textbook of family medicine. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
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
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501 · see citing works
Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care
Thiru, K., Hassey, A., & Sullivan, F. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- PMC
- PMC32256
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- 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