IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0195362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of routine data quality assessments on electronic medical record data quality in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Veronica Muthee
  • Aaron F Bochner
  • Allison Osterman
  • Nzisa Liku
  • Willis Akhwale
  • James Kwach
  • Mehta Prachi
  • Joyce Wamicwe
  • Jacob Odhiambo
  • Fredrick Onyango
  • Nancy Puttkammer

Abstract

Background: Routine Data Quality Assessments (RDQAs) were developed to measure and improve facility-level electronic medical record (EMR) data quality. We assessed if RDQAs were associated with improvements in data quality in KenyaEMR, an HIV care and treatment EMR used at 341 facilities in Kenya. Methods: RDQAs assess data quality by comparing information recorded in paper records to KenyaEMR. RDQAs are conducted during a one-day site visit, where approximately 100 records are randomly selected and 24 data elements are reviewed to assess data completeness and concordance. Results are immediately provided to facility staff and action plans are developed for data quality improvement. For facilities that had received more than one RDQA (baseline and follow-up), we used generalized estimating equation models to determine if data completeness or concordance improved from the baseline to the follow-up RDQAs. Results: 27 facilities received two RDQAs and were included in the analysis, with 2369 and 2355 records reviewed from baseline and follow-up RDQAs, respectively. The frequency of missing data in KenyaEMR declined from the baseline (31% missing) to the follow-up (13% missing) RDQAs. After adjusting for facility characteristics, records from follow-up RDQAs had 0.43-times the risk (95% CI: 0.32–0.58) of having at least one missing value among nine required data elements compared to records from baseline RDQAs. Using a scale with one point awarded for each of 20 data elements with concordant values in paper records and KenyaEMR, we found that data concordance improved from baseline (11.9/20) to follow-up (13.6/20) RDQAs, with the mean concordance score increasing by 1.79 (95% CI: 0.25–3.33). Conclusions: This manuscript demonstrates that RDQAs can be implemented on a large scale and used to identify EMR data quality problems. RDQAs were associated with meaningful improvements in data quality and could be adapted for implementation in other settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Veronica Muthee & Aaron F Bochner & Allison Osterman & Nzisa Liku & Willis Akhwale & James Kwach & Mehta Prachi & Joyce Wamicwe & Jacob Odhiambo & Fredrick Onyango & Nancy Puttkammer, 2018. "The impact of routine data quality assessments on electronic medical record data quality in Kenya," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0195362
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195362
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195362&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0195362?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mwita Wambura & Daniel Josiah Nyato & Neema Makyao & Mary Drake & Evodius Kuringe & Caterina Casalini & Jacqueline Materu & Soori Nnko & Gasper Mbita & Amani Shao & Albert Komba & John Changalucha & T, 2020. "Programmatic mapping and size estimation of key populations to inform HIV programming in Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0195362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.