Top

Published in:

01-04-2016

Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data

Authors: Otto S. Lin, Danielle La Selva, Jae-Myung Cha, Michael Gluck, Andrew Ross, Michael Chiorean, Richard A. Kozarek

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2016

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic documentation software can generate research data on large numbers of subjects automatically. There are increasing numbers of published studies based on endoscopic databases such as the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. However, no study has yet validated such data. We compared colonoscopic findings reported by an endoscopic documentation software (Provation) against manually collected medical records data from two similar patient cohorts in the same endoscopy unit.

Methods

In November 2011, our unit switched from dictation-based text documentation to the Provation system. As a quality control initiative, we collected data on 9614 patients who had undergone colonoscopies from January 2010 to November 2011, using manual electronic chart review. We compared these data against those generated by Provation on 7091 similar patients who underwent colonoscopy from November 2011 to March 2013.

Results

Age, sex and procedural indication distribution were similar between the Manual and Provation cohorts, as were the large (≥1 cm) polyp (7.6 vs. 8.1 %; p = 0.25) and advanced neoplasia (8.3 vs. 8.2 %; p = 0.80) prevalences. However, there were significant differences in the polyp (46.9 vs. 49.8 %) and adenoma prevalences (31.3 vs. 26.8 %; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the Manual cohort had a higher prevalence of diverticulosis and hemorrhoids, and a lower colonoscopy completion rate. Stratification by indication resulted in additional discrepancies between the two cohorts for screening and surveillance patients. There were also differences in the anatomic (right vs. left colon) distribution of large polyps.

Conclusions

There were significant discrepancies between data from Provation and manually collected medical records data. Although the two cohorts were enrolled during slightly different time periods, they came from the same endoscopy unit, had the same endoscopists and indications, and demonstrated similar demographics, making it unlikely for there to be true differences between the cohorts independent of documentation method. Thus, caution is advised when using endoscopic data for research.

Sivak MV Jr (2000) Endoscopy databases and endoscopic research. Gastrointest Endosc 51:243–244CrossRefPubMed

Eisen GM (1999) Endoscopic databases and outcomes research. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 9:587–594PubMed

Allison JJ, Wall TC, Spettell CM et al (2000) The art and science of chart review. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 26:115–136PubMed

Luck J, Peabody JW, Dresselhaus TR et al (2000) How well does chart abstraction measure quality? A prospective comparison of standardized patients with the medical record. Am J Med 108:642–649CrossRefPubMed

Cassidy LD, Marsh GM, Holleran MK et al (2002) Methodology to improve data quality from chart review in the managed care setting. Am J Manag Care 8:787–793PubMed

Campbell PG, Malone J, Yadla S et al (2011) Comparison of ICD-9-based, retrospective, and prospective assessments of perioperative complications: assessment of accuracy in reporting. J Neurosurg Spine 14:16–22CrossRefPubMed

Kuhn K, Swobodnik W, Johannes RS et al (1991) The quality of gastroenterological reports based on free text dictation: an evaluation in endoscopy and ultrasonography. Endoscopy 23:262–264CrossRefPubMed

Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr et al (1992) A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 326:653–657CrossRefPubMed

Javitt JC, McBean AM, Sastry SS et al (1993) Accuracy of coding in Medicare part B claims: cataract as a case study. Arch Ophthalmol 111:605–607CrossRefPubMed

10.

Du X, Freeman JL, Warren JL et al (2000) Accuracy and completeness of Medicare claims data for surgical treatment of breast cancer. Med Care 38:719–727CrossRefPubMed

11.

Smith-Bindman R, Quale C, Chu PW et al (2006) Can Medicare billing claims data be used to assess mammography utilization among women ages 65 and older? Med Care 44:463–470CrossRefPubMed

12.

Katz JN, Barrett J, Liang MH et al (1997) Sensitivity and positive predictive value of Medicare Part B physician claims for rheumatologic diagnoses and procedures. Arthritis Rheum 40:1594–1600CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kiyota Y, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ et al (2004) Accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value on the basis of review of hospital records. Am Heart J 148:99–104CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kottke TE, Baechler CJ, Parker ED (2012) Accuracy of heart disease prevalence estimated from claims data compared with an electronic health record. Preven chronic dis 9:E141

15.

Wilchesky M, Tamblyn RM, Huang A (2004) Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims. J Clin Epidemiol 57:131–141CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sewitch MJ, Jiang M, Joseph L et al (2013) Developing model-based algorithms to identify screening colonoscopies using administrative health databases. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13:45CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Benesch C, Witter DM Jr, Wilder AL et al (1997) Inaccuracy of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM) in identifying the diagnosis of ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Neurology 49:660–664CrossRefPubMed

18.

Wyse JM, Joseph L, Barkun AN et al (2011) Accuracy of administrative claims data for polypectomy. CMAJ 183:E743–E747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Schenck AP, Klabunde CN, Warren JL et al (2007) Data sources for measuring colorectal endoscopy use among Medicare enrollees. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16:2118–2127CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hoel DG, Ron E, Carter R et al (1993) Influence of death certificate errors on cancer mortality trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1063–1068CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ko CW, Dominitz JA, Green P et al (2011) Accuracy of Medicare claims for identifying findings and procedures performed during colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 73(447–453):e441

22.

Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF et al (2009) Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer: a population-based case-control study. Ann Intern Med 150:1–8CrossRefPubMed

23.

Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q et al (2013) Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 77:390–394CrossRefPubMed

24.

Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO (2012) Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 75:576–582CrossRefPubMed

25.

Crespi M, Delvaux M, Schaprio M et al (1996) Working Party Report by the Committee for Minimal Standards of Terminology and Documentation in Digestive Endoscopy of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Minimal standard terminology for a computerized endoscopic database. Ad hoc Task Force of the Committee. Am J Gastroenterol 91:191–216PubMed

26.

Delvaux M, Korman LY, Armengol-Miro JR et al (1998) The minimal standard terminology for digestive endoscopy: introduction to structured reporting. Int J Med Informatics 48:217–225CrossRef

27.

Helfand M, Oehlke MA, Lieberman DA (1997) Community-based research–a framework for problem formulation: the case of upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Med Decis Making 17:315–323CrossRefPubMed

28.

Corley DA, Cello JP, Koch J (2000) Accuracy of endoscopic databases for assessing patient symptoms: comparison with self-reported questionnaires in patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. Gastrointest Endosc 51:129–133CrossRefPubMed

Title: Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data
Authors: Otto S. Lin
Danielle La Selva
Jae-Myung Cha
Michael Gluck
Andrew Ross
Michael Chiorean
Richard A. Kozarek
Publication date: 01-04-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4389-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Novel method for hybrid endo-laparoscopic full-thickness gastric resection using laparoscopic transgastric suture passer device

Do not rush for surgery; stent placement may be an effective step for definitive treatment of initially unextractable common bile duct stones with ERCP

Laparoscopic pyloroplasty is a safe and effective first-line surgical therapy for refractory gastroparesis

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

Are there differences between right and left colectomies when performed by laparoscopy?

Comparison between orogastric tube/bougie and a suction calibration system for effects on operative duration, staple-line corkscrewing, and esophageal perforation during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy