Measuring the Delivery of Complex Interventions through Electronic Medical Records: Challenges and Lessons Learned.

Beth Prusaczyk, Vanessa Fabbre, Christopher R Carpenter, Enola Proctor
{"title":"Measuring the Delivery of Complex Interventions through Electronic Medical Records: Challenges and Lessons Learned.","authors":"Beth Prusaczyk,&nbsp;Vanessa Fabbre,&nbsp;Christopher R Carpenter,&nbsp;Enola Proctor","doi":"10.5334/egems.230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health services and implementation researchers often seek to capture the implementation process of complex interventions yet explicit guidance on how to capture this process is limited. Medical record review is a commonly used methodology, especially when used as a proxy for provider behavior, with recognized benefits and limitations. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of chart review to measure implementation and offer recommendations for future researchers using this method to capture the implementation process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Grounded in qualitative research methods, we measured the implementation of a transitional care intervention for older adults with dementia being discharged from the hospital. We adapted the operationalization of the intervention's components to suit chart review methods, sought input from hospital providers before and after data collection, and assessed the agreement between the results of our chart review and provider-report.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We believe chart review can be used effectively as a method for capturing the implementation process and provide future researchers with a list of recommendations based on our experience including understanding the nuance between data extraction versus data abstraction, allowing for large amounts of data not pre-specified in the data collection instrument to be collected, and purposefully and iteratively engaging the providers who are entering data into the chart.</p><p><strong>Major themes: </strong>Measuring the implementation of complex interventions is a cornerstone in health services research and with the relative convenience and low costs of using chart data, we believe with more use and refinement this methodology could emerge as a valuable and widely used method in the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":" ","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6078114/pdf/","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Background: Health services and implementation researchers often seek to capture the implementation process of complex interventions yet explicit guidance on how to capture this process is limited. Medical record review is a commonly used methodology, especially when used as a proxy for provider behavior, with recognized benefits and limitations. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of chart review to measure implementation and offer recommendations for future researchers using this method to capture the implementation process.

Methods: Grounded in qualitative research methods, we measured the implementation of a transitional care intervention for older adults with dementia being discharged from the hospital. We adapted the operationalization of the intervention's components to suit chart review methods, sought input from hospital providers before and after data collection, and assessed the agreement between the results of our chart review and provider-report.

Findings: We believe chart review can be used effectively as a method for capturing the implementation process and provide future researchers with a list of recommendations based on our experience including understanding the nuance between data extraction versus data abstraction, allowing for large amounts of data not pre-specified in the data collection instrument to be collected, and purposefully and iteratively engaging the providers who are entering data into the chart.

Major themes: Measuring the implementation of complex interventions is a cornerstone in health services research and with the relative convenience and low costs of using chart data, we believe with more use and refinement this methodology could emerge as a valuable and widely used method in the field.

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
通过电子病历衡量复杂干预措施的交付:挑战和经验教训。
背景:卫生服务和实施研究人员经常试图捕捉复杂干预措施的实施过程,但关于如何捕捉这一过程的明确指导有限。医疗记录审查是一种常用的方法,特别是当用作提供者行为的代理时,具有公认的优点和局限性。本研究的目的是测试图表回顾测量实施的可行性,并为未来的研究者使用这种方法来捕捉实施过程提供建议。方法:基于定性研究方法,我们测量了老年痴呆症患者出院后过渡性护理干预的实施情况。我们调整了干预措施组成部分的操作化,以适应图表审查方法,在收集数据之前和之后寻求医院提供者的意见,并评估我们的图表审查结果和提供者报告之间的一致性。研究结果:我们相信图表审查可以有效地用作捕获实施过程的方法,并根据我们的经验为未来的研究人员提供一系列建议,包括理解数据提取与数据抽象之间的细微差别,允许收集数据收集工具中未预先指定的大量数据,并有目的地和迭代地参与将数据输入图表的提供者。主要主题:衡量复杂干预措施的执行情况是卫生服务研究的基石,由于使用图表数据相对方便和成本低,我们相信,随着更多的使用和改进,这种方法可以成为该领域一种有价值和广泛使用的方法。
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
Implementing a Novel Quality Improvement-Based Approach to Data Quality Monitoring and Enhancement in a Multipurpose Clinical Registry. A Spatial Analysis of Health Disparities Associated with Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Children Living in Atlanta (2002–2010) Predicting the Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in the Intensive Care Unit Using Machine Learning Applying a Commercialization-Readiness Framework to Optimize Value for Achieving Sustainability of an Electronic Health Data Research Network and Its Data Capabilities: The SAFTINet Experience. Innovative Data Science to Transform Health Care: All the Pieces Matter
×
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