Browsing by Author "Wiebe, Natalie"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Evaluation of interventions to improve electronic health record documentation within the inpatient setting: a protocol for a systematic review
    (2019-02-13) Otero Varela, Lucia; Wiebe, Natalie; Niven, Daniel J; Ronksley, Paul E; Iragorri, Nicolas; Robertson, Helen L; Quan, Hude
    Abstract Background Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasing in popularity across national and international healthcare systems. Despite their augmented availability and use, the quality of electronic health records is problematic. There are various reasons for poor documentation quality within the EHR, and efforts have been made to address these areas. Previous systematic reviews have assessed intervention effectiveness within the outpatient setting or within paper documentation. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of different interventions seeking to improve EHR documentation within an inpatient setting. Methods We will employ a comprehensive search strategy that encompasses four distinct themes: EHR, documentation, interventions, and study design. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL) will be searched along with an in-depth examination of the grey literature and reference lists of relevant articles. A customized hybrid study quality assessment tool has been designed, integrating components of the Downs and Black and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales, into a REDCap data capture form to facilitate data extraction and analysis. Given the predicted high heterogeneity between studies, it may not be possible to standardize data for a quantitative comparison and meta-analysis. Thus, data will be synthesized in a narrative, semi-quantitative manner. Discussion This review will summarize the current level of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions implemented to improve inpatient EHR documentation, which could ultimately enhance data quality in administrative health databases. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017083494
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: an international survey
    (2021-04-07) Otero Varela, Lucia; Doktorchik, Chelsea; Wiebe, Natalie; Quan, Hude; Eastwood, Catherine
    Abstract Background The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the reference standard for reporting diseases and health conditions globally. Variations in ICD use and data collection across countries can hinder meaningful comparisons of morbidity data. Thus, we aimed to characterize ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features worldwide. Methods An online questionnaire was created to poll the World Health Organization (WHO) member countries that were using ICD. The survey included questions focused on ICD meta-features and hospital data collection systems, and was distributed via SurveyMonkey using purposive and snowball sampling. Accordingly, senior representatives from organizations specialized in the topic, such as WHO Collaborating Centers, and other experts in ICD coding were invited to fill out the survey and forward the questionnaire to their peers. Answers were collated by country, analyzed, and presented in a narrative form with descriptive analysis. Results Responses from 47 participants were collected, representing 26 different countries using ICD. Results indicated worldwide disparities in the ICD meta-features regarding the maximum allowable coding fields for diagnosis, the definition of main condition, and the mandatory type of data fields in the hospital morbidity database. Accordingly, the most frequently reported answers were “reason for admission” as main condition definition (n = 14), having 31 or more diagnostic fields available (n = 12), and “Diagnoses” (n = 26) and “Patient demographics” (n = 25) for mandatory data fields. Discrepancies in data collection systems occurred between but also within countries, thereby revealing a lack of standardization both at the international and national level. Additionally, some countries reported specific data collection features, including the use or misuse of ICD coding, the national standards for coding or lack thereof, and the electronic abstracting systems utilized in hospitals. Conclusions Harmonizing ICD coding standards/guidelines should be a common goal to enhance international comparisons of health data. The current international status of ICD data collection highlights the need for the promotion of ICD and the adoption of the newest version, ICD-11. Furthermore, it will encourage further research on how to improve and standardize ICD coding.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Global assessment of migraine severity measure: preliminary evidence of construct validity
    (2019-04-04) Sajobi, Tolulope T; Amoozegar, Farnaz; Wang, Meng; Wiebe, Natalie; Fiest, Kirsten M; Patten, Scott B; Jette, Nathalie
    Abstract Background In persons with migraine, severity of migraine is an important determinant of several health outcomes (e.g., patient quality of life and health care resource utilization). This study investigated how migraine patients rate the severity of their disease and how these ratings correlate with their socio-demographic, clinical, and psycho-social characteristics. Methods This is a cohort of 263 adult migraine patients consecutively enrolled in the Neurological Disease and Depression Study (NEEDs). We obtained a broad range of clinical and patient-reported measures (e.g., patients’ ratings of migraine severity using the Global Assessment of Migraine Severity (GAMS), and migraine-related disability, as measured by the Migraine Disability Scale (MIDAS)). Depression was measured using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Median regression analysis was used to examine the predictors of patient ratings of migraine severity. Results The mean age for the patients was 42.5 years (SD = 13.2). While 209 (79.4%) patients were females, 177 (67.4%) participants reported “moderately severe” to “extremely severe” migraine on the GAMS, and 100 (31.6%) patients had chronic migraine. Patients’ report of severity on the GAMS was strongly correlated with patients’ ratings of MIDAS global severity question, overall MIDAS score, migraine type, PHQ-9 score, and frequency of migraine attacks. Mediation analyses revealed that MIDAS mediated the effect of depression on patient ratings of migraine severity, accounting for about 32% of the total effect of depression. Overall, migraine subtype, frequency of migraine, employment status, depression, and migraine-related disability were statistically significant predictors of patient-ratings of migraine severity. Conclusions This study highlights the impact of clinical and psychosocial determinants of patient-ratings of migraine severity. GAMS is a brief and valid tool that can be used to assess migraine severity in busy clinical settings.