D. G. T. Arts

Defining and Improving Data Quality in Medical Registries: A Literature Review, Case Study, and Generic Framework

Over the past years the number of medical registries has increased sharply. Their value strongly depends on the quality of the data contained in the registry. To optimize data quality, special procedures have to be followed. A literature review and a case study of data quality formed the basis for the development of a framework of procedures for data quality assurance in medical registries. Procedures in the framework have been divided into procedures for the co-ordinating center of the registry (central) and procedures for the centers where the data are collected (local). These central and local procedures are further subdivided into (a) the prevention of insufficient data quality, (b) the detection of imperfect data and their causes, and (c) actions to be taken / corrections. The framework can be used to set up a new registry or to identify procedures in existing registries that need adjustment to improve data quality.

Reliability and accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scoring

Objective:The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was developed to quantify the severity of patients’ illness, based on the degree of organ dysfunction. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and the reliability of SOFA scoring. Design:Prospective study. Setting:Adult intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary academic center. Subjects:Thirty randomly selected patient cases and 20 ICU physicians. Measurements and Main Results:Each physician scored 15 patient cases. The intraclass correlation coefficient was .889 for the total SOFA score. The weighted kappa values were moderate (0.552) for the central nervous system, good (0.634) for the respiratory system, and almost perfect (>0.8) for the other organ systems. To assess accuracy, the physicians’ scores were compared with a gold standard based on consensus of two experts. The total SOFA score was correct in 53% (n = 158) of the cases. The mean of the absolute deviations of the recorded total SOFA scores from the gold standard total SOFA scores was 0.82. Common causes of errors were inattention, calculation errors, and misinterpretation of scoring rules. Conclusions:The results of this study indicate that the reliability and the accuracy of SOFA scoring among physicians are good. We advise implementation of additional measures to further improve reliability and accuracy of SOFA scoring.