Quality of recording of diabetes in the UK: How does the GP's method of coding clinical data affect incidence estimates? Cross-sectional study using the CPRD database

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Tate, A Rosemary ^a   Dungey, Sheena ^a,b   Glew, Simon ^c   Beloff, Natalia ^a   Williams, Rachael ^b   Williams, Tim ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDICINES AND HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS REGULATORY AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^c BRIGHTON AND SUSSEX MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; MEDICAL RECORD; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT CODING; READ CODE; UNITED KINGDOM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CODING; DOCUMENTATION; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; STANDARDS;

CLINICAL CODING; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DOCUMENTATION; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS'; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 85010723181     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012905     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Lawrenson R, Williams T, Farmer R. Clinical information for research; the use of general practice databases. J Public Health Med 1999; 21: 299-304
2. Dungey S, Beloff N, Puri S, et al. A pragmatic approach for measuring data quality in primary care databases. Proceedings of IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics, BHI. 2014: P797-800
3. Dungey S, Beloff N, Tate AR, et al. Characterisation of data quality in electronic healthcare records. In: Briassouli A, Benois-Pineau J, Hauptmann A, eds. Health monitoring and personalised feedback using multimedia data. Springer, 2015: 115-35
4. Stone MA, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Wilkinson J, et al. Incorrect and incomplete coding and classification of diabetes: a systematic review. Diabet Med 2010; 27: 491-7
5. Robertson ARR, Fernando B, Morrison Z, et al. Structuring and coding in health care records: a qualitative analysis using diabetes as a case study. J Innov Health Inform 2015; 22: 275-83
6. Maruthur NM. The growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes: increased incidence or improved survival?. Curr Diab Rep 2013; 13: 786-94
7. Holden SH, Barnett AH, Peters JR, et al. The incidence of type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2010. Diabetes Obes Metab 2013; 15: 844-52
8. Masso-González EL, Johansson S, Wallander MA, et al. Trends in the prevalence and incidence of diabetes in the UK: 1996-2005. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009; 63: 332-6
9. Yudkin JS, Montori VM. The epidemic of pre-diabetes: the medicine and the politics. BMJ 2014; 349: g4485
10. https: // www.diabetes.org.uk/About-us/What-we-say/Statistics// (accessed 2016).
11. De Lusignan S, Sadek N, Mulnier H, et al. Miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis of diabetes in primary care. Diabet Med 2012; 29: 181-9
12. Calvert M, Shankar A, McManus RJ, et al. Effect of the quality and outcomes framework on diabetes care in the United Kingdom: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2009; 338: b1870
13. Campbell SM, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, et al. Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 368-78
14. Sadek AR, van Vlymen J, Khunti K, et al. Automated identification of miscoded and misclassified cases of diabetes from computer records. Diabet Med 2012; 29: 410-14
15. Kho AN, Hayes MG, Rasmussen-Torvik L, et al. Use of diverse electronic medical record systems to identify genetic risk for type 2 diabetes within a genome-wide association study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: 212-18
16. Sharma M, Nazareth I, Petersen I. Trends in incidence, prevalence and prescribing in type 2 diabetes mellitus between 2000 and 2013 in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010210
17. Ford E, Nicholson A, Koeling R, et al. Optimising the use of electronic health records to estimate the incidence of rheumatoid arthritis in primary care: what information is hidden in free text?. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 105
18. Teasdale S. Training, training, training: lessons from the pilot project for the collection of health data from general practice. Br J Healthc Comput Inf Manag 1999; 16: 21-3
19. Johansen MA, Scholl J, Hasvold P, et al. Garbage in, garbage out: extracting disease surveillance data from EPR systems in primary care. Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 2008: P525-534
20. De Lusignan S. The barriers to clinical coding in general practice: a literature review. Inform Health Soc Care 2005; 30: 89-97
21. Coughlan L. Key Delivery Dates for the Read Codes (page 3). http: //systems.digital.nhs.uk/data/uktc/readcodes (accessed 2016).
22. The Royal College of General Practitioners. The RCGP Curriculum: Clinical Modules. http: //www.rcgp.org.uk/training-exams/ gp-curriculum-overview/document-version.aspx (accessed 2016).
23. Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, Roland M, et al. Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health?. BMJ 2011; 34: d228