Developing a method to estimate practice denominators for a national Canadian electronic medical record database

Family Practice

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 347-354

  Greiver, Michelle ^a   Williamson, Tyler ^b   Bennett, Terri Lyn ^c   Drummondd, Neil ^d   Savage, Colleen ^b   Aliarzadeh, Babak ^a   Birtwhistle, Richard V ^b   Khan, Shahriar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Electronic health records; Epidemiologic methods; Health care evaluation mechanisms; Morbidity prevalence; Primary health care; Sentinel surveillance

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CHILD; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; SCHOOL CHILD; SEX RATIO;

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HEALTH CARE EVALUATION MECHANISMS; MORBIDITY PREVALENCE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; SENTINEL SURVEILLANCE.;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CANADA; DATABASES AS TOPIC; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; SENTINEL SURVEILLANCE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84878651707     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: 14602229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cms083     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. National Physician Survey. Ottawa: College of Family Physicians of Canada and Canadian Medical Association, 2010.
2. Birtwhistle R, Keshavjee K, Lambert-Lanning A et al. Building a pan-Canadian primary care sentinel surveillance network: initial development and moving forward. J Am Board Fam Med 2009; 22: 412-22.
3. Green LA, Miller RS, Reed FM, Iverson DC, Barley GE. How representative of typical practice are practice-based research networks? A report from the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network Inc (ASPN). Arch Fam Med 1993; 2: 939-49.
4. Fleming DM, Schellevis FG, Paget WJ. Health monitoring in sentinel practice networks: the contribution of primary care. Eur J Public Health 2003; 13(3 Suppl): 80-4.
5. Green LA, Fryer GE Jr, Yawn BP, Lanier D, Dovey SM. The ecology of medical care revisited. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 2021-5.
6. Manuel DG, Maaten S, Thiruchelvam D, Jaakkimainen L, Upshur R. Primary Care in the health care system. In: Jaakkimainen L UR, Klein-Geltink JE, Leong A, Maaten S, Schultz SE, Wang L (eds). Primary Care in Ontario: ICES Atlas. Toronto: Institure for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2006.
7. Schultz SE TJ, Guttmann A, Jaakkimainen L. Characteristics of primary care practice. In: Jaakkimainen L UR, Klein-Geltink JE, Leong A, Maaten S, Schultz SE, Wang L (eds). Primary Care in Ontario: ICES Atlas. Toronto: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, 2006.
8. de Lusignan S, Metsemakers JF, Houwink P, Gunnarsdottir V, van der Lei J. Routinely collected general practice data: goldmines for research? A report of the European Federation for Medical Informatics Primary Care Informatics Working Group (EFMI PCIWG) from MIE2006, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Inform Prim Care 2006; 14: 203-9.
9. García Rodríguez LA, Pérez Gutthann S. Use of the UK General Practice Research Database for pharmacoepidemiology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 45: 419-25.
10. Bartholomeeusen S, Kim CY, Mertens R, Faes C, Buntinx F. The denominator in general practice, a new approach from the Intego database. Fam Pract 2005; 22: 442-7.
11. Biermans MC, Spreeuwenberg P, Verheij RA, de Bakker DH, de Vries Robbé PF, Zielhuis GA. Striking trends in the incidence of health problems in The Netherlands (2002-05). Findings from a new strategy for surveillance in general practice. Eur J Public Health 2009; 19: 290-6.
12. Hueston WJ, Mainous AG III, Ornstein S, Pan Q, Jenkins R. Antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections. Follow-up utilization and antibiotic use. Arch Fam Med 1999; 8: 426-30.
13. Hall J, Tomlin A, Martin I, Tilyard M. A general practice minimum data set for New Zealand. N Z Med J 2002; 115: U200.
14. Stocks NP, McElroy H, Sayer GP, Duszynski K. Acute bronchitis in Australian general practice. A prescription too far?Aust Fam Physician 2004; 33: 91-3.
15. Lagasse R, Desmet M, Jamoulle M et al. European situation of routine medical data collection and their utilization for health monitoring: Euro-Med-Data final report. Brussels: Universite Libre de Bruxelles, 2001.
16. Hutchison BG, Hurley J, Birch S, Lomas J, Stratford-Devai F. Defining the practice population in fee-for-service practice. Health Serv Res 1997; 32: 55-70.
17. Schach E. Numerators and denominators of rates estimated on the basis of physicians' practice data. Gesundheitswesen 1993; 55(1 Suppl): 18-21.
18. Schlaud M. Comparison and Harmonisation of Denominator Data for Primary Health Care Research in Countries of the European Community. IOS Press, 1999.
19. Lasko TA, Atlas SJ, Barry MJ, Chueh HC. Automated identification of a physician's primary patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 74-9.
20. Bass M. Approaches to the denominator problem in primary care research. J Fam Pract 1976; 3: 193-5.
21. Cherkin DC, Berg AO, Phillips WR. The practice denominator. J Fam Pract 1982; 15: 611.
22. Cherkin DC, Berg AO, Phillips WR. In search of a solution to the primary care denominator problem. J Fam Pract 1982; 14: 301-9.
23. Fraser RC, Clayton DG. The accuracy of age-sex registers, practice medical records and family practitioner committee registers. J R Coll Gen Pract 1981; 31: 410-9.
24. Fraser RC. The reliability and validity of the age-sex register as a population denominator in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract 1978; 28: 283-6.
25. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Toronto: Government of Ontario, 2004.
26. Glazier RH, Klein-Geltink J, Kopp A, Sibley LM. Capitation and enhanced fee-for-service models for primary care reform: a population-based evaluation. CMAJ 2009; 180: E72-81.
27. Jones NF, Marshall R. Evaluation of an electronic general-practitioner-based syndromic surveillance system-Auckland, New Zealand, 2000-2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2004; 53 Suppl: 173-8.
28. Mayo F, Marsland D, Wood M et al. Denominator definition by the utilization correction factor method. Fam Pract 1986; 3: 184-91.
29. Canadian community health survey 2008: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3226&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2. (accessed on 14 April 2010).
30. Sibley LM, Moineddin R, Agha MM, Glazier RH. Risk adjustment using administrative data-based and survey-derived methods for explaining physician utilization. Med Care 2010; 48: 175-82.
31. Glazier RH, Agha MM, Moineddin R, Sibley LM. Universal health insurance and equity in primary care and specialist office visits: a population-based study. Ann Fam Med 2009; 7: 396-405.
32. Reid R, Bogdanovic B, Roos N, Black C, MacWilliam L, Menec V. Do Some physician Groups See Sicker Patients Than Others? Implications for Primary Care Policy in Manitoba. Winnipeg: Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 2001.
33. Canadian Community Health Survey-Annual Component. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011 [updated July 192012; cited 2012 July 19]. http://www23.statcan.gc.ca:81/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3226&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2.
34. Anderson JE, Gancher WA, Bell PW. Validation of the patient roster in a primary care practice. Health Serv Res 1985; 20: 301-14.