Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024
A multi-center validation of the electronic health record admission source and discharge location fields against the clinical notes for identifying inpatients with long-term care facility exposure.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Goodman Katherine E, Taneja Monica, Magder Laurence S, Klein Eili Y, Sutherland Mark, Sorongon Scott, Tamma Pranita D, Resnik Philip, Harris Anthony D
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Identifying long-term care facility (LTCF)-exposed inpatients is important for infection control research and practice, but ascertaining LTCF exposure is challenging. Across a large validation study, electronic health record data fields identified 76% of LTCF-exposed patients compared to manual chart review.
OBJECTIVE: Residence or recent stay in a long-term care facility (LTCF) is an important risk factor for antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonization. However, absent dedicated intake questionnaires or resource-intensive chart review, ascertaining LTCF exposure in inpatients is challenging. We aimed to validate the electronic health record (EHR) admission and discharge location fields against the clinical notes for identifying LTCF-exposed inpatients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 1020 randomly sampled adult admissions between 2016 and 2021 across 12 University of Maryland Medical System hospitals. Using study-developed guidelines, we categorized the following data for LTCF exposure: each admission’s history & physical (H&P) note, each admission’s EHR-extracted “Admission Source,” and (3) the EHR-extracted admission and discharge locations for previous admissions (≤90 days). We estimated sensitivities, with 95% CIs, of H&P notes and of EHR admission/discharge location fields for detecting “current” and “any recent” (≤90 days, including current) LTCF exposure.
RESULTS: For detecting current LTCF exposure, the sensitivity of the index admission’s EHR-extracted “Admission Source” was 46% (95% CI: 35%–58%) and of the H&P note was 92% (83%–97%). For detecting any recent LTCF exposure, the sensitivity of “Admission Source” across the index and previous admissions was 32% (24%–41%), “Discharge Location” across previous admission(s) was 57% (47%–66%), and of the H&P note was 68% (59%–76%). The combined sensitivity of admission source and discharge location for detecting any recent LTCF exposure was 76% (67%–83%).
CONCLUSIONS: The EHR-obtained admission source and discharge location fields identified 76% of LTCF-exposed patients compared to chart review but disproportionately missed currently exposed patients.
OBJECTIVE: Residence or recent stay in a long-term care facility (LTCF) is an important risk factor for antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonization. However, absent dedicated intake questionnaires or resource-intensive chart review, ascertaining LTCF exposure in inpatients is challenging. We aimed to validate the electronic health record (EHR) admission and discharge location fields against the clinical notes for identifying LTCF-exposed inpatients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 1020 randomly sampled adult admissions between 2016 and 2021 across 12 University of Maryland Medical System hospitals. Using study-developed guidelines, we categorized the following data for LTCF exposure: each admission’s history & physical (H&P) note, each admission’s EHR-extracted “Admission Source,” and (3) the EHR-extracted admission and discharge locations for previous admissions (≤90 days). We estimated sensitivities, with 95% CIs, of H&P notes and of EHR admission/discharge location fields for detecting “current” and “any recent” (≤90 days, including current) LTCF exposure.
RESULTS: For detecting current LTCF exposure, the sensitivity of the index admission’s EHR-extracted “Admission Source” was 46% (95% CI: 35%–58%) and of the H&P note was 92% (83%–97%). For detecting any recent LTCF exposure, the sensitivity of “Admission Source” across the index and previous admissions was 32% (24%–41%), “Discharge Location” across previous admission(s) was 57% (47%–66%), and of the H&P note was 68% (59%–76%). The combined sensitivity of admission source and discharge location for detecting any recent LTCF exposure was 76% (67%–83%).
CONCLUSIONS: The EHR-obtained admission source and discharge location fields identified 76% of LTCF-exposed patients compared to chart review but disproportionately missed currently exposed patients.