Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1978; 17(03): 151-157
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1636431
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Formal Error Rate in a Computerized Obstetric Medical Record

DIE HÄUFIGKEIT FORMALER FEHLER IN EINER AUTOMATISCH ERSTELLTEN GEBURTSHILFLICHEN KRANKENGESCHICHTE
F. Jelovsek
1   From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center
,
W. Hammond
1   From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Missing and incompatible data rates in a computerized obstetric medical record are described and range from 0-84% with a median of 6%. Comparison is made to previous manual records and missing data rates appear to be similar. Certain unique characteristics of each variable checked (logistical problems, data sheet format, and low frequency, expected positive response) seem to have a stronger influence on the missing rate than do categories of time collected, source, type and transmission mode. There is bias in missing rates according to different patient types, but incompatible data rates appear not to be influenced.

Es wird über fehlende und inkompatible Daten in einer automatisch erstellten geburtshilflichen Krankengeschichte berichtet. Solche Fehler kommen mit einer Spannweite von 0 bis 84% und einem Durchschnitt von 6% vor. Vergleiche mit früheren, manuell erstellten Krankengeschichten ergaben eine ähnliche Anzahl fehlender Daten. Bestimmte spezifische Charakteristika jeder nachgeprüften Variablen (logistische Probleme, Datenblattformat sowie niedrige Vorkommens-Häufigkeit, erwartete positive Antwort) scheinen einen stärkeren Einfluß auf den Prozentsatz fehlender Daten zu haben als die gesammelten zeitlichen Kategorien, die Quelle, sowie Art und Modus der Datenübertragung. Die Anzahl fehlender Daten ist bei bestimmten Patienten-Kategorien größer, während die Anzahl unvereinbarer Daten keine solche Abhängigkeit zeigt.

Keywords

Medical Record System - Obstetrics - Data Error Rate - Missing Data

Schlüssel-Wörter

Krankengeschichtensystem - Geburtshilfe - Prozentsatz fehlerhafter Daten - fehlende Daten
 

  • References

  • 1 BRAHE R. G, HAMMOND W. E, STEAD W. W. The Computerized Obstetrical Record of Duke University. J. clin. Comput 4 ( 1974; ) 107-119.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 COLLEN M. F, CUTLER J. L, SIEGELATJB A. B, CELLA R. L. Reliability of a Self Administered Medical Questionnaire. Arch, intern. Med 113 ( 1969; ) 664-681.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 FEINSTEIN A. R. Quality of Data in the Medical Record. Comp, biomed. Res 3 ( 1970; ) 426-435.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 GILL P. W, LEAPER D. J, GUILLOTT P. J, STANILAND J. R, HORROCKS J. C, DE DOMBAL F. T. Observer Variation in Clinical Diagnosis — A Computer-Aided Assessment of its Magnitude and Importance in 552 Patients with Abdominal Pain. Meth. Inform. Med 12 ( 1973; ) 108-112.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 HAMMOND W. E, BRANTLEY B. A, FEAGIN S. J, LLOYD S. C, STEAD W. W, WALTEB E. L. GEMISCH — A Minicomputer Support. System. Proc. IEEE 61 ( 1973; ) 1575-1583.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 HENDRICKSON L, MYERS J. Some Sources and Potential Consequences of Errors in Medical Data Recording. Meth. Inform. Med 12 ( 1973; ) 38-45.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 LINDBEBG D.A.B. Collection, Evaluation, and Transmission of Hospital Laboratory Data. Meth. Inform. Med 6 ( 1967; ) 97-107.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 MARTIN J. M, POINTED J. P, MARTIN J, DEBET G. Structural, Syntactical and Semantic Data Validation in the Computer Processing of a Medical File. Meth. Inform. Med 15 ( 1976; ) 205-210.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 NACKE O, WAGNER G. Bibliographie zum Thema »Die Rolle des Fehlers in der Medizin; Fehlerforschung als Aufgabe der medizinischen Dokumentation«. Meth. Inform. Med 3 ( 1904; ) 133-150.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 ROBINSON R. E. Acquisition and Analysis of Narrative Medical Record Data. Comp. biomed. Res 3 ( 1970; ) 407-414.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 ROBINSON R. E. Pathology Subsystem. In Collen M. F. (Edit.) Hospital Computer Systems. pp. 194-205. ( New York: J. Wiley; 1974. ).
    Google Scholar
  • 12 ROGOT E. A Note of Measurement Errors and Detecting Real Differences. J. Amer. statist. Ass 56 ( 1961; ) 314-319.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 SCHACH E. Optical Scanning for Large-Scale Studies. Meth. Inform. Med 14 ( 1975; ) 33-34.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 SIMBOBG D. W. The Development of a Ward InformationManagement System. Meth. Inform. Med 12 ( 1973; ) 17-26.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 SMYTHE M. Record Numbering. In Acheson E. D. (Edit.) Record Linkage in Medicine. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Oxford, July 1967. PP. 179-187. ( Edinburgh and London: Livingston; 1968. ).
    Google Scholar
  • 16 STEAD W. W, BBAME R. G, HAMMOND W. E, JELOVSEK F. R, ESTES E. II, PARKER R. T. A Computerized Obstetric Medical Record. Obstet. Gynecol 19 ( 1977; ) 502-509.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 STEAD W. W, HAMMOND W. E, BRAME R. G. Computerized Obstetrical Records. J. clin. Comput 2 ( 1972; ) 5-14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 WAGNEB G. Quality Control and Error Checking. In Anderson J, Forsythe J. M. (Eds) Information Processing of Medical Records. pp. 222-238. ( Amsterdam and London: North-Holland; 1970. ).
    Google Scholar