Electronic Health Information Quality Challenges and Interventions to Improve Public Health Surveillance Data and Practice

Objective. We examined completeness, an attribute of data quality, in the context of electronic laboratory reporting (ELR) of notifiable disease information to public health agencies. Methods. We extracted more than seven million ELR messages from multiple clinical information systems in two states We calculated and compared the completeness of various data fields within the messages that were identified to be important to public health reporting processes We compared unaltered, original messages from source systems with similar messages from another state as well as messages enriched by a health information exchange (HIE). Our analysis focused on calculating completeness (i e, the number of nonmissing values) for fields deemed important for inclusion in notifiable disease case reports. Results. The completeness of data fields for laboratory transactions varied across clinical information systems and jurisdictions. Fields identifying the patient and test results were usually complete (97%–100%). Fields containing patient demographics, patient contact information, and provider contact information were suboptimal (6%–89%). Transactions enhanced by the HIE were found to be more complete (increases ranged from 2% to 25%) than the original messages. Conclusion. ELR data from clinical information systems can be of suboptimal quality. Public health monitoring of data sources and augmentation of ELR message content using HIE services can improve data quality.

[1]  D. Revere,et al.  The Northwest Public Health Information Exchange’s Accomplishments in Connecting a Health Information Exchange with Public Health , 2010, Online journal of public health informatics.

[2]  F. Mostashari,et al.  Benefits and barriers to electronic laboratory results reporting for notifiable diseases: the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene experience. , 2007, American journal of public health.

[3]  Thomas Redman,et al.  The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise , 1998, CACM.

[4]  C. Schoen,et al.  New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated. , 2011, Health affairs.

[5]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  How Disease Surveillance Systems Can Serve as Practical Building Blocks for a Health Information Infrastructure: the Indiana Experience , 2005, AMIA.

[6]  R. Vogt Laboratory reporting and disease surveillance. , 1996, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[7]  Mitchell J. Barnett,et al.  Assessing the accuracy of computerized medication histories. , 2004, The American journal of managed care.

[8]  Michael M. Wagner,et al.  Review: Accuracy of Data in Computer-based Patient Records , 1997, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[9]  P. Effler,et al.  Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. , 1999, JAMA.

[10]  Shaun J. Grannis,et al.  The Last Mile: Using Fax Machines to Exchange Data between Clinicians and Public Health , 2011, Online journal of public health informatics.

[11]  R. Wurtz,et al.  Electronic laboratory reporting for the infectious diseases physician and clinical microbiologist. , 2005, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[12]  Claudia H. Williams,et al.  From the Office of the National Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. , 2012, Health affairs.

[13]  Perry L. Miller,et al.  Research Paper: Exploring the Degree of Concordance of Coded and Textual Data in Answering Clinical Queries from a Clinical Data Repository , 2000, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[14]  Shaun J. Grannis,et al.  Leveraging Health Information Exchange to Support Public Health Situational Awareness: The Indiana Experience , 2010, Online journal of public health informatics.

[15]  Mustafa Fidahussein,et al.  Practical challenges in the secondary use of real-world data: the notifiable condition detector. , 2011, AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[16]  Julie J McGowan,et al.  Electronic laboratory data quality and the value of a health information exchange to support public health reporting processes. , 2011, AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[17]  Rema Padman,et al.  Analyzing the Effect of Data Quality on the Accuracy of Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Computer Simulation Approach , 2006, AMIA.

[18]  Joseph S. Lombardo Disease Surveillance: a Public Health Informatics Approach , 2008 .

[19]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Daniel J. Vreeman,et al.  Impact of Selective Mapping Strategies on Automated Laboratory Result Notification to Public Health Authorities , 2012, AMIA.

[21]  Brian E. Dixon,et al.  Pulling Back the Covers: Technical Lessons of a Real-World Health Information Exchange , 2007, MedInfo.

[22]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  A Framework for evaluating the costs, effort, and value of nationwide health information exchange , 2010, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[23]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. , 2008, American journal of public health.

[24]  C RedmanThomas The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise , 1998 .

[25]  Michael M. Wagner,et al.  Automatic Electronic Laboratory-Based Reporting of Notifiable Infectious Diseases , 2002, Emerging infectious diseases.