Identifying the optimal search strategy for coronary heart disease patients in primary care electronic patient record systems.

OBJECTIVES General practitioners are increasingly required to practice in a paperless environment and to collect clinical data electronically on electronic patient record (EPR) systems. A principal step in meeting general practice information needs continues to be the establishment of disease registers and consequently the identification of patient populations within primary care databases is a prerequisite. This study aims to identify and validate the optimal search strategy for coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS A multiple logistic regression model for the identification of CHD patients was developed in one site using electronic data, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Bayesian statistics. The model was tested on two trial sites. RESULTS Young male CHD patients are more easily identified by generic searches than older females. The optimal search strategy for CHD was found to be the diagnostic code for CHD, nitrate and digoxin but this was dependent on the disease description, age and sex of the study population and the coding system used within the database. Diagnostic code for CHD identified 80.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77-83%), 90.0% (CI 88-92%) and 95.9% (CI 94-97%) of local, national and international definitions respectively, with 100% positive predictive values (PPVs) for all definitions. CONCLUSION Generic queries may inadvertently perpetuate inequalities in health care. Queries should be bespoke and mindful of the conceptualization of disease by the clinicians recording these data.

[1]  David Bates,et al.  Secondary uses of clinical data in primary care. , 2007, Informatics in primary care.

[2]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  R C Fraser,et al.  The reliability and validity of the age-sex register as a population denominator in general practice. , 1978, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[4]  B J Biggerstaff,et al.  Comparing diagnostic tests: a simple graphic using likelihood ratios. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Azeem Majeed,et al.  Identifying patients with ischaemic heart disease in general practice: cross sectional study of paper and computerised medical records , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  A. Field Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. , 2000 .

[7]  A. Rector,et al.  The accuracy of age-sex registers in general practice. , 1984, The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[8]  A. Majeed,et al.  Age, sex and practice variations in the use of statins in general practice in England and Wales. , 2000, Journal of public health medicine.

[9]  A Richards,et al.  Reasons for delayed compliance with the childhood vaccination schedule and some failings of computerised vaccination registers , 1999, Australian and New Zealand journal of public health.

[10]  C. K. Ogden,et al.  The Meaning of Meaning , 1923 .

[11]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[12]  R M Milne,et al.  Completeness and accuracy of morbidity and repeat prescribing records held on general practice computers in Scotland. , 1996, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[13]  S. de Lusignan,et al.  Overcoming the constraints to becoming paperless. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[14]  A. Komaroff,et al.  The variability and inaccuracy of medical data , 1979, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[15]  K. Thiru,et al.  Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  David Gerrett,et al.  A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Simon De Lusignan,et al.  Three steps to data quality. , 2003, Informatics in primary care.

[18]  D. Mant,et al.  An assessment of morbidity registers for coronary heart disease in primary care. ASSIST (ASSessment of Implementation STrategy) trial collaborative group. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[19]  P. Donnan,et al.  Optimal strategies for identifying patients with myocardial infarction in general practice. , 2003, Family practice.

[20]  S Scobie,et al.  Can general practice data be used for needs assessment and health care planning in an inner-London district? , 1995, Journal of public health medicine.

[21]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[22]  Victoria Warmington,et al.  Randomised crossover trial comparing the performance of Clinical Terms Version 3 and Read Codes 5 byte set coding schemes in general practice , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  J. Hippisley-Cox,et al.  Sex inequalities in ischaemic heart disease in general practice: cross sectional survey , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Philip J. B. Brown,et al.  Does size matter?-Evaluation of value added content of two decades of successive coding schemes in secondary care , 2001, AMIA.