Electronic health information quality challenges and interventions to improve public health surveillance data and practice

Public Health Reports

Volumn 128, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 546-553

  Dixon, Brian E ^a,b,c   Siegel, Jason A ^d   Oemig, Tanya V ^e   Grannis, Shaun J ^a,b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b REGENSTRIEF INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d Atlas Development Corporation   (United States)

^e Wisconsin Electronic Disease Surveillance System   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH;

EID: 84887332915     PISSN: 00333549     EISSN: 14682877     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003335491312800614     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Effer P, Ching-Lee M, Bogard A, Ieong MC, Nekomoto T, Jernigan D. Statewide system of electronic notifable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods. JAMA 1999;282:1845-1850.
2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). HHS awards $139 million to drive adoption of health information technology [press release]; 2004 Oct 13 [cited 2013 May 26]. Available from: URL: http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20041013.html
3. Health Resources and Services Administration (US). Justification of estimates for appropriations committees [cited 2013 May 28]. Available from: URL: http://www.hrsa.gov/about/budget/budgetjustifcation2013.pdf
4. New York State Department of Health. Health information technology (health IT) grants-HEAL NY Phase 1 [cited 2011 Feb 18]. Available from: URL: http://www.health.state.ny.us/technology/awards
5. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Funding [cited 2011 Feb 18]. Available from: URL: http://www.projecthealthdesign.org/about/funding
6. Government Accountability Office (US). Emerging infection diseases: review of state and federal disease surveillance efforts. Washington: GAO; 2004. GAO-04-877.
7. State electronic disease surveillance systems-United States, 2007 and 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60(41):1421-1423.
8. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (US). Medicare and Medicaid programs; electronic health record incentive program- stage 2 [cited 2013 May 28]. Aavailable from: URL: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-09-04/pdf/2012-21050.pdf
9. Overhage JM, Grannis S, McDonald CJ. A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifable conditions. Am J Public Health 2008;98:344-50.
10. Vogt RL. Laboratory reporting and disease surveillance. J Public Health Manag Pract 1996;2:28-30.
11. Nguyen TQ, Thorpe L, Makki HA, Mostashari F. Benefits and barriers to electronic laboratory results reporting for notifable diseases: the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene experience. Am J Public Health 2007;97 Suppl 1:S142-S145.
12. Wang RY, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manag Inform Syst 1996;12:5-34.
13. Redman TC. The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise. Communications of the ACM 1998;41:79-82.
14. Hogan WR, Wagner MM. Accuracy of data in computer-based patient records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1997;4:342-355.
15. Hasan S, Padman R. Analyzing the effect of data quality on the accuracy of clinical decision support systems: a computer simulation approach. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2006;2006:324-328.
16. Stein HD, Nadkarni P, Erdos J, Miller PL. Exploring the degree of concordance of coded and textual data in answering clinical queries from a clinical data repository. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:42-54.
17. Kaboli PJ, McClimon BJ, Hoth AB, Barnett MJ. Assessing the accuracy of computerized medication histories. Am J Manag Care 2004;10(11 Pt 2):872-877.
18. Schoen C, Osborn R, Squires D, Doty M, Pierson R, Applebaum S. New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30:2437-2448.
19. Williams C, Mostashari F, Mertz K, Hogin E, Atwal P. From the Office of the National Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012;31:527-536.
20. Dixon BE, Zafar A, Overhage JM. A framework for evaluating the costs, effort, and value of nationwide health information exchange. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010;17:295-301.
21. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). Health information exchange [cited 2013 Feb 7]. Available from: URL: http://healthit.ahrq.gov/hie
22. Department of Health and Human Services (US). HITECH programs & advisory committees: health IT adoption programs [cited 2013 Feb 12]. Available from: URL: http://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/health-it-adoption-programs
23. Dixon BE, McGowan JJ, Grannis SJ. Electronic laboratory data quality and the value of a health information exchange to support public health reporting processes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011;2011:322-30.
24. Downs SM, Anand V, Sheley M, Grannis SJ. The last mile: using fax machines to exchange data between clinicians and public health. Online J Public Health Inform 2011;3(3).
25. Grannis SJ, Stevens K, Merriwether R. Leveraging health information exchange to support public health situational awareness: the Indiana experience. Online J Public Health Inform 2010;2(2).
26. Dobbs D, Trebatoski M, Revere D. The Northwest Public Health Information Exchange's accomplishments in connecting a health information exchange with public health. Online J Public Health Inform 2010;2(2).
27. Wurtz R, Cameron BJ. Electronic laboratory reporting for the infectious diseases physician and clinical microbiologist. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1638-1643.
28. Panackal AA, M'Ikanatha NM, Tsui FC, McMahon J, Wagner MM, Dixon BW, et al. Automatic electronic laboratory-based reporting of notifable infectious diseases at a large health system. Emerg Infect Dis 2002;8:685-691.
29. Grannis SJ, Biondich PG, Mamlin BW, Wilson G, Jones L, Overhage JM. How disease surveillance systems can serve as practical building blocks for a health information infrastructure: the Indiana experience. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2005;2005:286-290.
30. Zafar A, Dixon BE. Pulling back the covers: technical lessons of a real-world health information exchange. Stud Health Technol Inform 2007;129(Pt 1):488-492.
31. Indiana Administrative Code. §410 IAC 1-2.3-47: reporting requirements for physicians and hospital administrators [cited 2013 May 28]. Available from: URL: http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/title410.html
32. Fidahussein M, Friedlin J, Grannis S. Practical challenges in the secondary use of real-world data: the notifable condition detector. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011;2011:402-408.
33. Lombardo JS, Buckeridge DL, editors. Disease surveillance: a public health informatics approach. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
34. Gamache RE, Dixon BE, Grannis S, Vreeman DJ. Impact of selective mapping strategies on automated laboratory result notifcation to public health authorities. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012;2012:228-36.