Electronic health record (EHR) technologies have improved the ease of access to structured clinical data. The standard means by which data are collected continues to be manual chart review. The authors compared the accuracy of manual chart review against modern electronic data warehouse queries. A manual chart review of the EHR was performed with medical record numbers and surgical admission dates for the 100 most recent inpatient venous thromboembolic events after total joint arthroplasty. A separate data query was performed with the authors' electronic data warehouse. Data sets were then algorithmically compared to check for matches. Discrepancies between data sets were evaluated to categorize errors as random vs systematic. From 100 unique patient encounters, 27 variables were retrieved. The average transcription error rate was 9.19% (SD, ±5.74%) per patient encounter and 11.04% (SD, ±21.40%) per data variable. The systematic error rate was 7.41% (2 of 27). When systematic errors were excluded, the random error rate was 5.79% (SD, ±7.04%) per patient encounter and 5.44% (SD, ±5.63%) per data variable. Total time and average time for manual data collection per patient were 915 minutes and 10.3±3.89 minutes, respectively. Data collection time for the entire electronic query was 58 seconds. With an error rate of 10%, manual chart review studies may be more prone to type I and II errors. Computer-based data queries can improve the speed, reliability, reproducibility, and scalability of data retrieval and allow hospitals to make more data-driven decisions. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(5):e404–e408.]
- 1.Humbert M. Technology and workforce: comparison between the information revolution and the industrial revolution. Dissertation. University of California; 2007. Google Scholar
- 2.Castells M. The information age: economy, society and culture. Volume I. The rise of the network society. Journal of Marketing. 1997; 61(4):96–97.
- 3.Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005; 293(10):1223–1238.
10.1001/jama.293.10.1223PMID: 15755945Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 4.Adler-Milstein J, Everson J, Lee S-YD. EHR adoption and hospital performance: time-related effects. Health Serv Res. 2015; 50(6):1751–1771.
10.1111/1475-6773.12406PMID: 26473506Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 5.Kazley AS, Diana ML, Ford EW, Menachemi N. Is electronic health record use associated with patient satisfaction in hospitals?Health Care Manage Rev.2012; 37(1):23–30.
10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182307bd3PMID: 21918464Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005; 24(5):1103–1117.
10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103PMID: 16162551Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 7.Katzan I, Speck M, Dopler C, The Knowledge Program: an innovative, comprehensive electronic data capture system and warehouse. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011; 2011:683–692. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3243190&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract PMID:
- 8.Minassian VA, Yan X, Lichtenfeld MJ, Sun H, Stewart WF. The iceberg of health care utilization in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2012; 23(8):1087–1093.
10.1007/s00192-012-1743-xPMID: 22527544Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 9.Hersh WR, Weiner MG, Embi PJ, Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013; 51(8) (suppl 3):S30–S37.
10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829b1dbdPMID: 23774517Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 10.Botsis T, Hartvigsen G, Chen F, Weng C. Secondary use of EHR: data quality issues and informatics opportunities. AMIA Summits Transl Sci Proc. 2010:1–5. Google Scholar
- 11.Nordo AH, Eisenstein EL, Hawley J, A comparative effectiveness study of eSource used for data capture for a clinical research registry. Int J Med Inform. 2017; 103:89–94.
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.015PMID: 28551007Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 12.Prokosch HU, Ganslandt T. Perspectives for medical informatics: reusing the electronic medical record for clinical research. Methods Inf Med. 2009; 48(1):38–44.
10.3414/ME9132PMID: 19151882Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 13.Lee KM, Ryu MS, Chung CY, Characteristics and trends of orthopedic publications between 2000 and 2009. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011; 3(3):225–229.
10.4055/cios.2011.3.3.225PMID: 21909470Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 14.Rosenbaum S. Law and the public's health. Public Health Reports. 2010; 125(October):759–762. Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 15.El Fadly A, Rance B, Lucas N, Integrating clinical research with the Healthcare Enterprise: from the RE-USE project to the EHR4CR platform. J Biomed Inform. 2011; 44(suppl 1):S94–S102.
10.1016/j.jbi.2011.07.007PMID: 21888989Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 16.Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchCenter for Biologics Evaluation and ResearchCenter for Devices and Radiological Health. Use of electronic health record data in clinical investigations: guidance for industry. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/use-electronic-health-record-data-clinical-investigations-guidance-industry Google Scholar
- 17.Einav L, Levin J. Economics in the age of big data. Science. 2014; 346(6210).
10.1126/science.1243089Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 18.Auschitzky E, Hammer M, Rajagopaul A. How big data can improve manufacturing. https://digitalstrategy.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014.01-A-How-big-data-can-improve-manufacturing-_-McKinsey-Company.pdf Google Scholar
- 19.Marr B. The big data transformation. http://www.oreilly.com/data/free/files/the-big-data-transformation.pdf Google Scholar
- 20.Srivastava U, Gopalkrishnan S. Impact of big data analytics on banking sector: learning for Indian Banks. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015; 50:643–652.
- 21.Shu W, Strassmann PA. Does information technology provide banks with profit?Inf Manage. 2005; 42(5):781–787.