66 research outputs found

    A retrospective cohort study on lifestyle habits of cardiovascular patients: how informative are medical records?

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 79771.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: To evaluate the vigilance of medical specialists as to the lifestyle of their cardiovascular outpatients by comparing lifestyle screening as registered in medical records versus a lifestyle questionnaire (LSQ), a study was carried out at the cardiovascular outpatient clinic of the university hospital of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, between June 2004 and June 2005. METHODS: For 209 patients information from medical records on lifestyle habits, physician feedback, and interventions in the past year was compared to data gathered in the last month by a self-report LSQ. RESULTS: Doctors register smoking habits most consistently (90.4%), followed by alcohol use (81.8%), physical activity (50.2%), and eating habits (27.3%). Compared to the LSQ, smoking, unhealthy alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy eating habits are underreported in medical records by 31, 83, 54 and 97%, respectively. Feedback, advice or referral was documented in 8% for smoking, 3% for alcohol use, 12% for physical activity, and 26% for eating habits. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle is insufficiently registered or recognized by doctors providing routine care in a cardiovascular outpatient setting. Of the unhealthy lifestyle habits that are registered, few are accompanied by notes on advice or intervention. A lifestyle questionnaire facilitates screening and interventions in target patients and should therefore be incorporated in the cardiovascular setting as a routine patient intake procedure

    Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computerized Clinical Records, which are incorporated in primary health care practice, have great potential for research. In order to use this information, data quality and reliability must be assessed to prevent compromising the validity of the results.</p> <p>The aim of this study is to validate the diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes mellitus in the computerized clinical records of primary health care, taking the diagnosis criteria established in the most prominently used clinical guidelines as the gold standard against which what measure the sensitivity, specificity, and determine the predictive values.</p> <p>The gold standard for diabetes mellitus was the diagnostic criteria established in 2003 American Diabetes Association Consensus Statement for diabetic subjects. The gold standard for hypertension was the diagnostic criteria established in the Joint National Committee published in 2003.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional multicentre validation study of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnoses in computerized clinical records of primary health care was carried out. Diagnostic criteria from the most prominently clinical practice guidelines were considered for standard reference.</p> <p>Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and global agreement (with kappa index), were calculated. Results were shown overall and stratified by sex and age groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The agreement for diabetes mellitus with the reference standard as determined by the guideline was almost perfect (κ = 0.990), with a sensitivity of 99.53%, a specificity of 99.49%, a positive predictive value of 91.23% and a negative predictive value of 99.98%.</p> <p>Hypertension diagnosis showed substantial agreement with the reference standard as determined by the guideline (κ = 0.778), the sensitivity was 85.22%, the specificity 96.95%, the positive predictive value 85.24%, and the negative predictive value was 96.95%. Sensitivity results were worse in patients who also had diabetes and in those aged 70 years or over.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results substantiate the validity of using diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension found within the computerized clinical records for epidemiologic studies.</p
    corecore