Barriers to data quality resulting from the process of coding health information to administrative data: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Administrative health data are increasingly used for research and surveillance to inform decision-making because of its large sample sizes, geographic coverage, comprehensivity, and possibility for longitudinal follow-up. Within Canadian provinces, individuals are assigned unique personal health numbers that allow for linkage of administrative health records in that jurisdiction. It is therefore necessary to ensure that these data are of high quality, and that chart information is accurately coded to meet this end. Our objective is to explore the potential barriers that exist for high quality data coding through qualitative inquiry into the roles and responsibilities of medical chart coders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 medical chart coders from Alberta, Canada. We used thematic analysis and open-coded each transcript to understand the process of administrative health data generation and identify barriers to its quality. Results The process of generating administrative health data is highly complex and involves a diverse workforce. As such, there are multiple points in this process that introduce challenges for high quality data. For coders, the main barriers to data quality occurred around chart documentation, variability in the interpretation of chart information, and high quota expectations. Conclusions This study illustrates the complex nature of barriers to high quality coding, in the context of administrative data generation. The findings from this study may be of use to data users, researchers, and decision-makers who wish to better understand the limitations of their data or pursue interventions to improve data quality

A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data.

OBJECTIVE: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmonized to a comprehensive unified terminology with definitions and examples and organized into a conceptual framework to support a common approach to defining whether EHR data is 'fit' for specific uses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DQ publications, informatics and analytics experts, managers of established DQ programs, and operational manuals from several mature EHR-based research networks were reviewed to identify potential DQ terms and categories. Two face-to-face stakeholder meetings were used to vet an initial set of DQ terms and definitions that were grouped into an overall conceptual framework. Feedback received from data producers and users was used to construct a draft set of harmonized DQ terms and categories. Multiple rounds of iterative refinement resulted in a set of terms and organizing framework consisting of DQ categories, subcategories, terms, definitions, and examples. The harmonized terminology and logical framework's inclusiveness was evaluated against ten published DQ terminologies. RESULTS: Existing DQ terms were harmonized and organized into a framework by defining three DQ categories: (1) Conformance (2) Completeness and (3) Plausibility and two DQ assessment contexts: (1) Verification and (2) Validation. Conformance and Plausibility categories were further divided into subcategories. Each category and subcategory was defined with respect to whether the data may be verified with organizational data, or validated against an accepted gold standard, depending on proposed context and uses. The coverage of the harmonized DQ terminology was validated by successfully aligning to multiple published DQ terminologies. DISCUSSION: Existing DQ concepts, community input, and expert review informed the development of a distinct set of terms, organized into categories and subcategories. The resulting DQ terms successfully encompassed a wide range of disparate DQ terminologies. Operational definitions were developed to provide guidance for implementing DQ assessment procedures. The resulting structure is an inclusive DQ framework for standardizing DQ assessment and reporting. While our analysis focused on the DQ issues often found in EHR data, the new terminology may be applicable to a wide range of electronic health data such as administrative, research, and patient-reported data. CONCLUSION: A consistent, common DQ terminology, organized into a logical framework, is an initial step in enabling data owners and users, patients, and policy makers to evaluate and communicate data quality findings in a well-defined manner with a shared vocabulary. Future work will leverage the framework and terminology to develop reusable data quality assessment and reporting methods