Testing an Automated Approach to Identify Variation in Outcomes among Children with Type 1 Diabetes across Multiple Sites

Jessica Addison, H. Razzaghi, Charles Bailey, Kim Dickinson, Sarah D. Corathers, David M. Hartley, Levon H. Utidjian, A. Carle, E. Rhodes, G. Alonso, M. Haller, A. Gannon, J. Indyk, A. Arbeláez, E. Shenkman, C. Forrest, D. Eckrich, Brianna Magnusen, S. Davies, K. Walsh
{"title":"Testing an Automated Approach to Identify Variation in Outcomes among Children with Type 1 Diabetes across Multiple Sites","authors":"Jessica Addison, H. Razzaghi, Charles Bailey, Kim Dickinson, Sarah D. Corathers, David M. Hartley, Levon H. Utidjian, A. Carle, E. Rhodes, G. Alonso, M. Haller, A. Gannon, J. Indyk, A. Arbeláez, E. Shenkman, C. Forrest, D. Eckrich, Brianna Magnusen, S. Davies, K. Walsh","doi":"10.1097/pq9.0000000000000602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Efficient methods to obtain and benchmark national data are needed to improve comparative quality assessment for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). PCORnet is a network of clinical data research networks whose infrastructure includes standardization to a Common Data Model (CDM) incorporating electronic health record (EHR)-derived data across multiple clinical institutions. The study aimed to determine the feasibility of the automated use of EHR data to assess comparative quality for T1D. Methods: In two PCORnet networks, PEDSnet and OneFlorida, the study assessed measures of glycemic control, diabetic ketoacidosis admissions, and clinic visits in 2016–2018 among youth 0–20 years of age. The study team developed measure EHR-based specifications, identified institution-specific rates using data stored in the CDM, and assessed agreement with manual chart review. Results: Among 9,740 youth with T1D across 12 institutions, one quarter (26%) had two or more measures of A1c greater than 9% annually (min 5%, max 47%). The median A1c was 8.5% (min site 7.9, max site 10.2). Overall, 4% were hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (min 2%, max 8%). The predictive value of the PCORnet CDM was >75% for all measures and >90% for three measures. Conclusions: Using EHR-derived data to assess comparative quality for T1D is a valid, efficient, and reliable data collection tool for measuring T1D care and outcomes. Wide variations across institutions were observed, and even the best-performing institutions often failed to achieve the American Diabetes Association HbA1C goals (<7.5%).","PeriodicalId":343243,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Quality and Safety","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Quality and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000602","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Efficient methods to obtain and benchmark national data are needed to improve comparative quality assessment for children with type 1 diabetes (T1D). PCORnet is a network of clinical data research networks whose infrastructure includes standardization to a Common Data Model (CDM) incorporating electronic health record (EHR)-derived data across multiple clinical institutions. The study aimed to determine the feasibility of the automated use of EHR data to assess comparative quality for T1D. Methods: In two PCORnet networks, PEDSnet and OneFlorida, the study assessed measures of glycemic control, diabetic ketoacidosis admissions, and clinic visits in 2016–2018 among youth 0–20 years of age. The study team developed measure EHR-based specifications, identified institution-specific rates using data stored in the CDM, and assessed agreement with manual chart review. Results: Among 9,740 youth with T1D across 12 institutions, one quarter (26%) had two or more measures of A1c greater than 9% annually (min 5%, max 47%). The median A1c was 8.5% (min site 7.9, max site 10.2). Overall, 4% were hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (min 2%, max 8%). The predictive value of the PCORnet CDM was >75% for all measures and >90% for three measures. Conclusions: Using EHR-derived data to assess comparative quality for T1D is a valid, efficient, and reliable data collection tool for measuring T1D care and outcomes. Wide variations across institutions were observed, and even the best-performing institutions often failed to achieve the American Diabetes Association HbA1C goals (<7.5%).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测试一种自动化方法来识别多地点1型糖尿病儿童结局的变化
为了提高1型糖尿病儿童(T1D)的比较质量评估,需要有效的方法来获取和基准国家数据。PCORnet是一个临床数据研究网络,其基础设施包括一个公共数据模型(CDM)的标准化,该模型包含跨多个临床机构的电子健康记录(EHR)衍生数据。该研究旨在确定自动使用电子病历数据评估T1D相对质量的可行性。方法:在两个PCORnet网络(PEDSnet和OneFlorida)中,研究评估了2016-2018年0-20岁青少年的血糖控制、糖尿病酮症酸中毒入院和临床就诊情况。研究小组制定了基于ehr测量的规范,使用存储在CDM中的数据确定了特定机构的比率,并通过手动图表审查评估了一致性。结果:在12个机构的9740名T1D青年中,四分之一(26%)每年有两次或两次以上的A1c大于9%(最小5%,最大47%)。中位A1c为8.5%(最小位点7.9,最大位点10.2)。总体而言,4%的患者因糖尿病酮症酸中毒住院(最小2%,最大8%)。PCORnet CDM对所有测量值的预测值为75%,对三个测量值的预测值为90%。结论:使用ehr衍生的数据来评估T1D的相对质量是一种有效、高效和可靠的数据收集工具,可用于测量T1D的护理和结果。各机构之间存在很大差异,即使是表现最好的机构也常常无法达到美国糖尿病协会的HbA1C目标(<7.5%)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving Wait Times for Children with Caregivers with Limited English Proficiency in the Emergency Department Utilizing Clinical Decision Support in the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infection across a Large Pediatric Primary Care Network Pediatric Inpatient Leaders, Views Changed with COVID-19: A Call to Re-engage in Quality Improvement Qualitative Study on Safe and Effective Handover Information during a Rapid Response Team Encounter New strategies to Reduce Unnecessary Antibiotic Use in the NICU: A Quality Improvement Initiative
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1