Data quality in healthcare: A report of practical experience with the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network data
Abstract
Data quality (DQ) is the degree to which a given dataset meets a user’s requirements. In the primary healthcare setting, poor quality data can lead to poor patient care, negatively affect the validity and reproducibility of research results and limit the value that such data may have for public health surveillance. To extract reliable and useful information from a large quantity of data and to make more effective and informed decisions, data should be as clean and free of errors as possible. Moreover, because DQ is defined within the context of different user requirements that often change, DQ should be considered to be an emergent construct. As such, we cannot expect that a sufficient level of DQ will last forever. Therefore, the quality of clinical data should be constantly assessed and reassessed in an iterative fashion to ensure that appropriate levels of quality are sustained in an acceptable and transparent manner. This document is based on our hands-on experiences dealing with DQ improvement for the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network database. The DQ dimensions that are discussed here are accuracy and precision, completeness and comprehensiveness, consistency, timeliness, uniqueness, data cleaning and coherence.
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?
Data quality relies on accuracy and completeness.
“Data quality relies on accuracy and completeness [27]”
Cites
A Data Quality Assessment Guideline for Electronic Health Record Data Reuse
Weiskopf, N. G., Bakken, S., Hripcsak, G., & Weng, C. (2017) · eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) · doi:10.5334/egems.218 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data Quality in the Age of AI: A Review of Governance, Ethics, and the FAIR Principles
Guillen-Aguinaga, M., Aguinaga-Ontoso, E., Guillen-Aguinaga, L., Guillen-Grima, F., & Aguinaga-Ontoso, I. (2025) · Data · doi:10.3390/data10120201 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Sood, N., Stetter, C., Kunselman, A., & Jasani, S. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000428 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ehsani-Moghaddam, B., Martin, K., & Queenan, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Queen’s University, Canada
- Queen's University (CA)
- Venue
- Health Information Management Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-12-05
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 88-92
- ISSN
- 1833-3583 (ISSN-L)
- 1833-3575
- OpenAlex
- W2992507139
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Information Management Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- data quality, Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network, primary care, clinical data, disease surveillance, data cleaning, data completeness, data consistency, data timeliness, data quality improvement
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Canada, Primary Health Care, Databases, Factual, Sentinel Surveillance, Quality Improvement, Public Health Surveillance
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