Can electronic routine data act as a surrogate for patient-assessed outcome measures?

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 138-143

  Hutchings, Hayley A ^a,e   Cheung, Wai Yee ^a,e   Williams, John G ^a   Cohen, David ^b   Longo, Mirella F ^b   Russell, Ian ^c,d  

^a SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLAMORGAN   (United Kingdom)

^c BANGOR UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d Velindre NHS Trust   (United Kingdom)

^e SWANSEA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Feasibility; Inflammatory bowel disease; Patient assessed outcome; Routine data

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DATA REDUCTION; DISEASES; ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE; RELIABILITY;

FEASIBILITY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES; PATIENT-ASSESSED OUTCOMES (PAO); RAPID GROWTH; UK INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE QUESTIONNARIE (UKIBDQ);

DATA RECORDING;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CODING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; ENTERITIS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ASSESSED OUTCOME MEASURE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYMPTOM; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED KINGDOM INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 13544277896     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230505018X     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Addington-Hall J, Kalra L. Who should measure quality of life? BMJ. 2001;322:1417-1420.
2. Academy of Colleges Information Group. Specification of core requirements for clinical information systems in support of secondary care. Available at: www.aomrc.org.uk; Accessed: 2001.
3. Bakken Henry S, Lush M, Costantino M, et al. Health status measurement in computer-based patient record systems. Nurs Admin Q. 1997;21:50-60.
4. Bakken Henry S, Morris J, Holzemer W. Using structured text and templates to capture health status outcomes in the electronic health record. J Qual Improv. 1997;23:667-677.
5. Brazier J, Harper R, Jones N. et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: A new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160-164.
6. Carr A, Gibson B, Robinson P. Is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ. 2001;322:1240-1243.
7. Cheung W-Y, Garratt A, Russell I, Williams J. The UK IBDQ- A British version of the inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire: Development and validation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:297-306.
8. Cole L, Houston S. Integrating information technology with an outcomes management program. Crit Care Nurs Q. 1997; 19:71-79.
9. Deyo R, Diehr P, Patrick D. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategics for evaluation. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12:142S-158S.
10. Department Of Health. The NHS Plan- a plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: Stationary Office; July 2000.
11. Department Of Health. Building the information core: Implementing the NHS plan. London: Department of Health; 2001.
12. Dolin R. Outcome analysis: Considerations for an electronic health record. M.D. Computing. 1997;14:50-56.
13. Galland R, Magee T, Berridge D, et al. Accuracy of centrally recorded OPCS codes for vascular surgery in the United Kingdom. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1998;16:415-418.
14. Galland R, Whatling P, Crook T, Magee T. Regional variation in varicose vein operations in England 1989-1996. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82:275-279.
15. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick. Quality of life measurements: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ. 2002;234:1417-1419.
16. Higginson I, Carr A. Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ. 2001;322:1297-1300.
17. Johnson R, Hornbrook M, Nichols G. Replicating the chronic disease score (CDS) from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1191-1199.
18. Johnston R. Implementation of a computer-based patient record and an outcomes data-collection system at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1502-1506.
19. Mann R, Williams J. Standards in medical record keeping. Clin Med. 2003;3:329-332.
20. Medical Outcomes Trust. SF-36 Health Survey Scoring Manual for English Language Adaptations. Australia/New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Boston, MA: Medical Outcomes Trust; 1994.
21. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-1194.
22. National Health Service Information Authority. Clinical terminology and classification services. Available at: http://www. coding.nhsia.nhs.uk.
23. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Tabular list of the classification of surgical operations and procedures. 4th revision. London: HMSO; 1990.
24. Pollock AM, Vickers N. Reducing DCO registration through electronic matching of cancer registry data and routine hospital data. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:712-717.
25. Rietman L, Hendricks H. Speaking the same language: Improving evaluation of patient-focused outcomes using standardized terminology. Top Health Inform Manage. 2000;20: 35-43.
26. Streiner G. Norman R. Health measurement measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
27. Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.
28. Welsh Assembly Government, Informing healthcare-towards a knowledge-based NHS. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly Government; 2002.
29. Whitman G. Outcomes research. Getting started, defining outcomes, a framework, and data sources. Crit Care Nurs Clin N Am. 2002;14:261-268.
30. World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems. 10th revision. Geneva: World Health Organization: 1992.
31. Williams J, Morgan J, Hewlett P, Severs M. Let there be light. Br J Healthcare Comput. 1993;10:30-32.
32. Williams J, Cheung W, Russell I, et al. Open access follow up for inflammatory bowel disease: Pragmatic randomised trial and cost effectiveness study. BMJ. 2000;320:544-548.
33. Williams J, Cheung W, Cohen D, et al. Can randomized trials rely on existing electronic data? A feasibilily study to explore the value of routine data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(26).
34. Wilson I, Cleary P. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273:59-65.
35. Zielstorff R. Capturing and using clinical outcome data: Implications for information systems design. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 1995;2:191-196.