Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Ubiquity Press, Ltd.  (3)
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ubiquity Press, Ltd. ; 2019
    In:  eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) Vol. 7, No. 1 ( 2019-03-29), p. 8-
    In: eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes), Ubiquity Press, Ltd., Vol. 7, No. 1 ( 2019-03-29), p. 8-
    Abstract: Objective: Multi-organizational research requires a multi-organizational data quality assessment (DQA) process that combines and compares data across participating organizations. We demonstrate how such a DQA approach complements traditional checks of internal reliability and validity by allowing for assessments of data consistency and the evaluation of data patterns in the absence of an external “gold standard.”Methods: We describe the DQA process employed by the Data Coordinating Center (DCC) for Kaiser Permanente’s (KP) Center for Effectiveness and Safety Research (CESR). We emphasize the CESR DQA reporting system that compares data summaries from the eight KP organizations in a consistent, standardized manner.Results: We provide examples of multi-organization comparisons from DQA to confirm expectations about different aspects of data quality. These include: 1) comparison of direct data extraction from the electronic health records (EHR) and 2) comparison of non-EHR data from disparate sources.Discussion: The CESR DCC has developed codes and procedures for efficiently implementing and reporting DQA. The CESR DCC approach is to 1) distribute DQA tools to empower data managers at each organization to assess their data quality at any time, 2) summarize and disseminate findings to address data shortfalls or document idiosyncrasies, and 3) engage data managers and end-users in an exchange of knowledge about the quality and its fitness for use.Conclusion: The KP CESR DQA model is applicable to networks hoping to improve data quality. The multi-organizational reporting system promotes transparency of DQA, adds to network knowledge about data quality, and informs research.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2327-9214
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2734659-6
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ubiquity Press, Ltd. ; 2017
    In:  eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) Vol. 5, No. 1 ( 2017-06-12), p. 8-
    In: eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes), Ubiquity Press, Ltd., Vol. 5, No. 1 ( 2017-06-12), p. 8-
    Abstract: Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across multiple national clinical data sharing organizations.Methods: Six organizations with established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until consensus was achieved.Results: Participating organizations provided 11,026 DQ checks, of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ checks (N=11,023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84 percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories.Discussion: Using the common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This variation may be related to the organization’s stakeholder requirements, primary analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights into DQA practice differences.Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data networks.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2327-9214
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2734659-6
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ubiquity Press, Ltd. ; 2017
    In:  eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) Vol. 5, No. 1 ( 2017-06-12)
    In: eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes), Ubiquity Press, Ltd., Vol. 5, No. 1 ( 2017-06-12)
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2327-9214
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2734659-6
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages