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
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
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion characteristics measured or reported in randomised trials of intrapartum interventions: A Scoping Review. Protocol for the development of an intervention to improve the use of Point-of-caRE DiagnostICs in the management of respiraTOry tRact infectionS in primary care (the PREDICTORS study). Characteristics of participants in the first fully online National Diabetes Prevention Programme: A quantitative survey. Development of a Health Impact Assessment Implementation Model: Enhancing Intersectoral Approaches in Tackling Health Inequalities- A Mixed Methods Study Protocol. Using a digital health intervention "INTERCEPT" to improve secondary prevention in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients: protocol for a mixed methods non-randomised feasibility study.
×
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