Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2017; 34(12): 1241-1249
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603325
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Internal Audit of the Canadian Neonatal Network Data Collection System

Prakesh S. Shah
1   Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2   Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Wendy Seidlitz
3   McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Priscilla Chan
1   Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Sonny Yeh
1   Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Natasha Musrap
1   Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Shoo K. Lee
1   Department of Paediatrics, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2   Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
on behalf of data abstractors of the Canadian Neonatal Network › Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

09 January 2017

03 April 2017

Publication Date:
12 May 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Neonatal databases worldwide have become a prominent tool for benchmarking, evaluation of outcomes, and quality improvement initiatives. We aimed to assess the precision of the Canadian Neonatal Network (CNN) database by conducting an internal audit of data extraction.

Methods An audit was conducted in all 31 neonatal units participating in the CNN. Ninety-five data items selected for reabstraction were classified into categories (critical, important, less important) based on predefined agreement rates. Five records were randomly selected at each site for reabstraction, including one short (3–7 days), two medium (8–12 days), and two long (18–22 days) stay cases. Agreement rates for each data item were calculated for individual units and across the network.

Results A total of 155 cases and 14,725 data fields were reabstracted. The overall agreement rates for critical, important, and less important data items were 98.0, 96.1, and 96.3%, respectively. Individual site variation for discrepancies ranged between 0.2 and 12.8% for all collected data items.

Conclusion Neonatal data extraction within the CNN database structure exhibited high precision; thereby, revealing the reliability of our data abstraction for neonatal demographic, processes of care, and outcomes information. An independent external audit of data extraction would be beneficial.

Keywords

database - benchmarking - neonatal network - audit

Canadian Neonatal Network Data Abstractors

Sue Wadsworth and Margaret Baker, Victoria General Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia; Afsaneh Afshar and Sheryl Atkinson, B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia; Parisa Golahmadinia, Royal Columbian Hospital, New Westminster, British Columbia; Kristen Konowalchuk, Surrey Memorial Hospital, Surrey, British Columbia; Tracy Dubitz, Donna Gardiner, and Sandi Moller, Royal Alexandra Hospital & University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta; Ali Macrobie, Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta; Michelle Matthews, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Alberta; Aimee Goss and Laura Wiwchar, Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Caroline Sorensen, Regina General Hospital, Regina, Saskatchewan; Valerie Cook, Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Naomi Granke, Dayle Everatt, and Diane Schultz, St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Jodie Nugent and Yit Kuk Chan, Windsor Regional Hospital, Windsor, Ontario; Ellen Townson, Loreanne D'Orazio, and Wendy Seidlitz, McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, Hamilton; Sheila Johnston and Nancy Dodman, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario; Elena Nikolaeva, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario; Robin Knighton, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario; Allyson Morris, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario; Lizy Kodiattu, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario; Francois Tshibemba, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and Ottawa General Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario; Alda DiBattista, Montréal Children's Hospital, Montréal, Québec; Sylvie Vincent, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, Québec; Jocelyne Vallee and Lucie Lafond, Hôpital Sainte-Justine, Montréal, Québec; Nathalie Fredette and Mylène Leblanc, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Sainte Foy, Québec; Dr. Valérie Bertelle and Dr. Édith Massé Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec; Debbie Arsenault, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia; Irma Macdonald, Cape Breton Regional Hospital, Sydney, Nova Scotia; Valerie Cobham-Richards, Saint John Regional Hospital, Saint John, New Brunswick; Norma Leger, Moncton Hospital, Moncton, New Brunswick; Carol Muncer, Joanne Aube, Carol Levesque, and Janet Paquin (Coordinator), Dr. Everett Chalmers Hospital, Fredericton, New Brunswick; Nicole Tucker, Janeway Children's Health and Rehabilitation Centre, St. John's, Newfoundland.


Funding

Organizational support for the Canadian Neonatal Network was provided by the Maternal-Infant Care Research Centre (MiCare) at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, ON, Canada. MiCare is supported by a team grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, FRN87518) and in-kind support from Mount Sinai Hospital. The Canadian Neonatal Network is supported by a CIHR Preterm Birth Network Team Grant (PBN150642). Dr. Shah holds an Applied Research Chair in Reproductive and Child Health Services and Policy Research awarded by the CIHR (APR-126340).


 

  • References

  • 1 Slagle TA, Gould JB. Database use in neonatal intensive care units: success or failure. Pediatrics 1992; 90 (06) 959-970
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shah V, Warre R, Lee SK. Quality improvement initiatives in neonatal intensive care unit networks: achievements and challenges. Acad Pediatr 2013; 13 (6, Suppl): S75-S83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shah PS, Lui K, Sjörs G. , et al; International Network for Evaluating Outcomes (iNeo) of Neonates. Neonatal outcomes of very low birth weight and very preterm neonates: an international comparison. J Pediatr 2016; 177: 144-152.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zozus MN, Pieper C, Johnson CM. , et al. Factors affecting accuracy of data abstracted from medical records. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10) e0138649 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Newgard CD, Zive D, Jui J, Weathers C, Daya M. Electronic versus manual data processing: evaluating the use of electronic health records in out-of-hospital clinical research. Acad Emerg Med 2012; 19 (02) 217-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Salem H, Roth E, Fornango J. A comparison of automated data collection and manual data collection for toxicology studies. Arch Toxicol Suppl 1983; 6: 361-364
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Paulsen A, Overgaard S, Lauritsen JM. Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes. PLoS One 2012; 7 (04) e35087 . Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Eder C, Fullerton J, Benroth R, Lindsay SP. Pragmatic strategies that enhance the reliability of data abstracted from medical records. Appl Nurs Res 2005; 18 (01) 50-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Liddy C, Wiens M, Hogg W. Methods to achieve high interrater reliability in data collection from primary care medical records. Ann Fam Med 2011; 9 (01) 57-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Byrne MD, Jordan TR, Welle T. Comparison of manual versus automated data collection method for an evidence-based nursing practice study. Appl Clin Inform 2013; 4 (01) 61-74
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee SK, McMillan DD, Ohlsson A. , et al. Variations in practice and outcomes in the Canadian NICU network: 1996-1997. Pediatrics 2000; 106 (05) 1070-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 The Canadian Neonatal Network. The Canadian Neonatal Network abstractor's manual, v.3.0.0. 2017 . Available at: http://www.canadianneonatalnetwork.org/portal/CNNHome/Publications.aspx . Accessed December 4, 2015.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 The Canadian Neonatal Network. The Canadian Neonatal Network Annual Report 2013 . Available at: http://www.canadianneonatalnetwork.org/portal/CNNHome/Publications.aspx . Accessed December 4, 2015.
    PubMed
  • 14 Joseph KS, Fahey J. ; Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Validation of perinatal data in the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Chronic Dis Can 2009; 29 (03) 96-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Horbar JD, Leahy KA. An assessment of data quality in the Vermont-Oxford Trials Network database. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16 (01) 51-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dunn S, Bottomley J, Ali A, Walker M. 2008 Niday Perinatal Database quality audit: report of a quality assurance project. Chronic Dis Inj Can 2011; 32 (01) 32-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Davey MA, Sloan ML, Palma S, Riley M, King J. Methodological processes in validating and analysing the quality of population-based data: a case study using the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection. HIM J 2013; 42 (03) 12-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cook SF, Visscher WA, Hobbs CL, Williams RL. ; Project IMPACT Clinical Implementation Committee. Project IMPACT: results from a pilot validity study of a new observational database. Crit Care Med 2002; 30 (12) 2765-2770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Herbert MA, Prince SL, Williams JL, Magee MJ, Mack MJ. Are unaudited records from an outcomes registry database accurate?. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77 (06) 1960-1964 , discussion 1964–1965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar