Validation of the rates of adverse event incidence in administrative healthcare data through patient chart review: A scoping review protocol.

HRB open research Pub Date : 2024-12-12 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.12688/hrbopenres.13706.2
Anna Connolly, Marcia Kirwan, Anne Matthews
{"title":"Validation of the rates of adverse event incidence in administrative healthcare data through patient chart review: A scoping review protocol.","authors":"Anna Connolly, Marcia Kirwan, Anne Matthews","doi":"10.12688/hrbopenres.13706.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient safety is a key issue for health systems and a growing global public health challenge. Administrative healthcare data provide a coded summary of a patient and their encounter with the healthcare system. These aggregated datasets are often used to inform research and decisions relating to health service planning and therefore it is vital that they are accurate and reliable. Given the reported inaccuracy of these datasets for detecting and recording adverse events, there have been calls for validation studies to explore their reliability and investigate further their potential to inform research and health policy. Researchers have since carried out validation studies on the rates of adverse events in administrative data through chart reviews therefore, it seems appropriate to identify and chart the evidence and results of these studies within a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. A search of databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, ScienceDirect and Scopus will be conducted in addition to a search of the reference lists of sourced publications and a search for grey literature. Following this, Covidence will be used to screen the sourced publications and subsequently extract data from the included sources. A numerical summary of the literature will be presented in addition to a charting based on the qualitative content analysis of the studies included.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This protocol provides the structure for the conduct of a review to identify and chart the evidence on validation studies on rates of adverse events in administrative healthcare data. This review will aim to identify research gaps, chart the evidence of and highlight any flaws within administrative datasets to improve extraction and coding practices and enable researchers and policy makers to use these data to their full potential.</p>","PeriodicalId":73254,"journal":{"name":"HRB open research","volume":"6 ","pages":"21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11808841/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HRB open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13706.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patient safety is a key issue for health systems and a growing global public health challenge. Administrative healthcare data provide a coded summary of a patient and their encounter with the healthcare system. These aggregated datasets are often used to inform research and decisions relating to health service planning and therefore it is vital that they are accurate and reliable. Given the reported inaccuracy of these datasets for detecting and recording adverse events, there have been calls for validation studies to explore their reliability and investigate further their potential to inform research and health policy. Researchers have since carried out validation studies on the rates of adverse events in administrative data through chart reviews therefore, it seems appropriate to identify and chart the evidence and results of these studies within a scoping review.

Methods: The scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. A search of databases such as PubMed, CINAHL, ScienceDirect and Scopus will be conducted in addition to a search of the reference lists of sourced publications and a search for grey literature. Following this, Covidence will be used to screen the sourced publications and subsequently extract data from the included sources. A numerical summary of the literature will be presented in addition to a charting based on the qualitative content analysis of the studies included.

Conclusions: This protocol provides the structure for the conduct of a review to identify and chart the evidence on validation studies on rates of adverse events in administrative healthcare data. This review will aim to identify research gaps, chart the evidence of and highlight any flaws within administrative datasets to improve extraction and coding practices and enable researchers and policy makers to use these data to their full potential.

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
通过患者病历回顾对行政医疗数据中不良事件发生率的验证:一项范围审查方案。
背景:患者安全是卫生系统的一个关键问题,也是日益严峻的全球公共卫生挑战。管理医疗保健数据提供了患者及其与医疗保健系统的接触的编码摘要。这些汇总数据集通常用于为与卫生服务规划有关的研究和决策提供信息,因此,准确和可靠的数据至关重要。鉴于报告的这些用于检测和记录不良事件的数据集不准确,有人呼吁进行验证研究,以探索其可靠性,并进一步调查其为研究和卫生政策提供信息的潜力。此后,研究人员通过图表审查对行政数据中的不良事件率进行了验证研究,因此,在范围审查中确定和记录这些研究的证据和结果似乎是合适的。方法:范围审查将按照乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)的范围审查方法进行。检索PubMed、CINAHL、ScienceDirect和Scopus等数据库,检索来源出版物的参考文献列表和灰色文献。在此之后,将使用covid - ence对来源出版物进行筛选,随后从纳入的来源中提取数据。除了基于所包括的研究的定性内容分析的图表外,还将提出文献的数字摘要。结论:本方案提供了进行审查的结构,以确定和绘制行政保健数据中不良事件发生率验证研究的证据。这篇综述将旨在确定研究差距,绘制证据图表并突出管理数据集中的任何缺陷,以改进提取和编码实践,并使研究人员和政策制定者能够充分利用这些数据。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Impact of guidance issued during COVID-19 to expand take-home doses of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) in Ireland: protocol for a population-based analysis of prescribing practices and patient outcomes 2018 to 2023. Exploring how health inequalities are conceptualised and measured in patient experience surveys in acute care: a protocol for a scoping review. A literature review of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments in adults with intellectual disability. Perspectives of primary care healthcare professionals on interventions aimed at reducing the environmental impact of medicines: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol. What barriers and facilitators to self-management are experienced by mothers who wish to breastfeed but require concurrent pharmacotherapy in the first two years postpartum? A mixed-methods systematic review protocol.
×
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:604180095
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