scholarly journals The Validity of Chief Complaint and Discharge Diagnosis in Emergency Department-based Syndromic Surveillance

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 1262-1267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron T. Fleischauer ◽  
Benjamin J. Silk ◽  
Mare Schumacher ◽  
Ken Komatsu ◽  
Sarah Santana ◽  
...  
2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 1262-1267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron T. Fleischauer ◽  
Benjamin J. Silk ◽  
Mare Schumacher ◽  
Ken Komatsu ◽  
Sarah Santana ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emery Shekiro ◽  
Lily Sussman ◽  
Talia Brown

Objective: In order to better describe local drug-related overdoses, we developed a novel syndromic case definition using discharge diagnosis codes from emergency department data in the Colorado North Central Region (CO-NCR). Secondarily, we used free text fields to understand the use of unspecified diagnosis fields.Introduction: The United States is in the midst of a drug crisis; drug-related overdoses are the leading cause of unintentional death in the country. In Colorado the rate of fatal drug overdose increased 68% from 2002-2014 (9.7 deaths per 100,000 to 16.3 per 100,000, respectively)1, and non-fatal overdose also increased during this time period (23% increase in emergency department visits since 2011)2. The CDC’s National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) provides near-real time monitoring of emergency department (ED) events across the country, with information uploaded daily on patient demographics, chief complaint for visit, diagnosis codes, triage notes, and more. Colorado North Central Region (CO-NCR) receives data for 4 local public health agencies from 25 hospitals across Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson Counties.Access to local syndromic data in near-real time provides valuable information for local public health program planning, policy, and evaluation efforts. However, use of these data also comes with many challenges. For example, we learned from key informant interviews with ED staff in Boulder and Denver counties, about concern with the accuracy and specificity of drug-related diagnosis codes, specifically for opioid-related overdoses.Methods: Boulder County Public Health (BCPH) and Denver Public Health (DPH) developed a query in Early Notification of Community Based Epidemics (ESSENCE) using ICD-10-CM codes to identify cases of drug-related overdose [T36-T51] from October 2016 to September 2017. The Case definition included unintentional, self-harm, assault and undetermined poisonings, but did not include cases coded as adverse effects or underdosing of medication. Cases identified in the query were stratified by demographic factors (i.e., gender and age) and substance used in poisoning. The first diagnosis code in the file was considered the primary diagnosis. Chief complaint and triage note fields were examined to further describe unspecified cases and to describe how patients present to emergency departments in the CO-NCR. We also explored whether detection of drug overdose visits captured by discharge diagnosis data varied by patient sex, age, or county.Results: The query identified 2,366 drug-related overdoses in the CO-NCR. The prevalence of drug overdoses differed across age groups. The detection of drug overdoses was highest among our youth and young adult populations; 16 to 20 year olds (16.0%), 21-25 year olds (11.4%), 26-30 year olds (11.4%). Females comprised 56.1% of probable general drug overdoses. The majority of primary diagnoses (31.0%) included poisonings related to diuretics and other unspecified drugs (T50), narcotics (T40) (12.6%), or non-opioid analgesics (T39) (7.8%). For some cases with unspecified drug overdose codes there was additional information about drugs used and narcan administration found in the triage notes and chief complaint fields.Conclusions: Syndromic surveillance offers the opportunity to capture drug-related overdose data in near-real time. We found variation in drug-related overdose by demographic groups. Unspecified drug overdose codes are extremely common, which likely negatively impacts the quality of drug-specific surveillance. Leveraging chief complaint and triage notes could improve our understanding of factors involved in drug-related overdose with limitations in discharge diagnosis. Chart reviews and access to more fields from the ED electronic health record could improve local drug surveillance.


2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Begier ◽  
Denise Sockwell ◽  
Leslie M. Branch ◽  
John O. Davies-Cole ◽  
LaVerne H. Jones ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 132 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 88S-94S ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Janet Kuramoto-Crawford ◽  
Erica L. Spies ◽  
John Davies-Cole

Objectives: Limited studies have examined the usefulness of syndromic surveillance to monitor emergency department (ED) visits involving suicidal ideation or attempt. The objectives of this study were to (1) examine whether syndromic surveillance of chief complaint data can detect suicide-related ED visits among adults and (2) assess the added value of using hospital ED data on discharge diagnoses to detect suicide-related visits. Methods: The study data came from the District of Columbia electronic syndromic surveillance system, which provides daily information on ED visits at 8 hospitals in Washington, DC. We detected suicide-related visits by searching for terms in the chief complaints and discharge diagnoses of 248 939 ED visits for which data were available for October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016. We examined whether detection of suicide-related visits according to chief complaint data, discharge diagnosis data, or both varied by patient sex, age, or hospital. Results: The syndromic surveillance system detected 1540 suicide-related ED visits, 950 (62%) of which were detected through chief complaint data and 590 (38%) from discharge diagnosis data. The source of detection for suicide-related ED visits did not vary by patient sex or age. However, whether the suicide-related terms were mentioned in the chief complaint or discharge diagnosis differed across hospitals. Conclusions: ED syndromic surveillance systems based on chief complaint data alone would underestimate the number of suicide-related ED visits. Incorporating the discharge diagnosis into the case definition could help improve detection.


2017 ◽  
Vol 132 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73S-79S ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth R. Daly ◽  
Kenneth Dufault ◽  
David J. Swenson ◽  
Paul Lakevicius ◽  
Erin Metcalf ◽  
...  

Objectives: Opioid-related overdoses and deaths in New Hampshire have increased substantially in recent years, similar to increases observed across the United States. We queried emergency department (ED) data in New Hampshire to monitor opioid-related ED encounters as part of the public health response to this health problem. Methods: We obtained data on opioid-related ED encounters for the period January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2015, from New Hampshire’s syndromic surveillance ED data system by querying for (1) chief complaint text related to the words “fentanyl,” “heroin,” “opiate,” and “opioid” and (2) opioid-related International Classification of Diseases ( ICD) codes. We then analyzed the data to calculate frequencies of opioid-related ED encounters by age, sex, residence, chief complaint text values, and ICD codes. Results: Opioid-related ED encounters increased by 70% during the study period, from 3300 in 2011 to 5603 in 2015; the largest increases occurred in adults aged 18-29 and in males. Of 20 994 total opioid-related ED visits, we identified 18 554 (88%) using ICD code alone, 690 (3%) using chief complaint text alone, and 1750 (8%) using both chief complaint text and ICD code. For those encounters identified by ICD code only, the corresponding chief complaint text included varied and nonspecific words, with the most common being “pain” (n = 3335, 18%), “overdose” (n = 1555, 8%), “suicidal” (n = 816, 4%), “drug” (n = 803, 4%), and “detox” (n = 750, 4%). Heroin-specific encounters increased by 827%, from 4% of opioid-related encounters in 2011 to 24% of encounters in 2015. Conclusions: Opioid-related ED encounters in New Hampshire increased substantially from 2011 to 2015. Data from New Hampshire’s ED syndromic surveillance system provided timely situational awareness to public health partners to support the overall response to the opioid epidemic.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristin Arkin

ObjectiveIn August 2017, a large influx of visitors was expected to view the total solar eclipse in Idaho. The Idaho Syndromic Surveillance program planned to enhance situation awareness during the event. In preparation, we sought to examine syndrome performance of several newly developed chief complaint and combination chief complaint and diagnosis code syndrome definitions to aid in interpretation of syndromic surveillance data during the event.IntroductionThe August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse in Idaho was anticipated to lead to a large influx of visitors in many communities, prompting a widespread effort to assure Idaho was prepared. To support these efforts, the Idaho Syndromic Surveillance program (ISSp) developed a plan to enhance situation awareness during the event by conducting syndromic surveillance using emergency department (ED) visit data contributed to the National Syndromic Surveillance Program’s BioSense platform by Idaho hospitals. ISSp sought input on anticipated threats from state and local emergency management and public health partners, and selected 8 syndromes for surveillance.Ideally, the first electronic message containing information on an emergency department visit is sent to ISSp within 24 hours of the visit and includes the chief complaint for the visit. Data on other variables, such as diagnosis codes, are updated by subsequent messages for several days after the visit. Chief complaint (CC) text and discharge diagnosis (DD) codes are the primary variables used for syndrome match; delay in reporting these variables adversely affects timely syndrome match of visits. Because our plan included development of new syndrome definitions and querying data within 24 hours of visits, earlier than ISSp had done previously for trend analysis, we sought to better understand syndrome performance.MethodsWe defined messages with completed CC and DD as the last message regarding a visit where term count increased from previous messages regarding that visit, indicating new information was added to the field. We retrospectively assessed the total number of ED visits and calculated the daily frequency of completed CC and DD by days since visit date for visits during June 1–July 31, 2017. Additionally, we calculated facility mean word count in CC fields by averaging the word count of parsed, complete CC fields for visits occurring June 1–July 31, 2017 for each facility.During July 10–24, 2017, we calculated the daily frequency of visits occurring in the previous 90 days for total ED visits and syndrome-matched visits for 8 selected syndromes (heat-related illness; cold exposure; influenza-like-illness; nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; animal/bug bites and stings; drowning/submersion; alcohol/drug intoxication; and medication replacement). Syndrome-matched visits were defined as visits with CC or DD that match the syndrome definition. We calculated the percent of syndrome-matched visits by syndromes defined with CC or CC and DD combined (CCDD) over time. Syndromes with fewer than 5 matched visits were excluded from analysis.ResultsComplete CCs were received for 99.1% of visits and complete DDs were received for 89.8% of visits. Complete CCs were submitted for 58.2% of visits within 1 day of the visit, 88.9% of visits within 3 days, and 98.9% of visits within 7 days. In contrast, complete DDs were submitted for 24.3% of visits within 1 day, 38.7% of visits within 3 days, and 53.7% of visits within 7 days (Table 1).During the observation period, data submission from facilities representing approximately 33% of visits was interrupted for 5 (36%) of 14 days. Heat-related illness, cold exposure, and drowning/submersion, were excluded from syndrome-match analysis. During the 9 days of uninterrupted data submission, 100% syndrome-matched visits for syndromes defined by CC alone and 69.1% syndrome-matched visits for syndromes defined by CCDD were identified within 6–7 days of initial visit. Facilities with interrupted data submission contributed 75% of CC syndrome-matched visits and 33% of CCDD syndrome-matched visits. The facility mean word count in CC fields from these facilities was >15 compared with 2–4 from other facilities.ConclusionsExamination of syndrome performance prior to a known event quantitated differences in timeliness of CC and DD completeness and syndrome match. CCs and DDs in visit messages were not complete within 24 hours of initial visit. CC completion was nearly 34 percentage points greater than DD completeness 1 day after initial visit and did not converge until ≥15 days after initial visit. Higher percentages of syndrome match within 6–7 days of initial visit were seen by CC alone than CCDD defined syndromes. Facilities using longer CCs contributed disproportionately to syndrome matching using CC, but not CCDD syndrome definitions. Syndromic surveillance system characteristics, including timeliness of CCs and DDs, length of CCs, and characteristics of facilities from which data transmission is interrupted should be considered when building syndrome definitions that will be used for surveillance within 7 days of emergency department visits and when interpreting syndromic surveillance findings.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J Rock ◽  
M D Singleton

Objective: The aim of this project was to assess the face validity of surveillance case definitions for heroin overdose in emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency department syndromic surveillance (SyS) data systems by comparing case counts to those found in a statewide emergency department (ED) hospital administrative billing data system.Introduction: In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 12 states, under the Enhanced State Opioid Overdose Surveillance (ESOOS) program, to utilize state Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and emergency department syndromic surveillance (SyS) data systems to increase timeliness of state data on drug overdose events. An important component of the ESOOS program is the development and validation of case definitions for drug overdoses for EMS and ED SyS data systems with a focus on small area anomaly detection. In fiscal year one of the grant Kentucky collaborated with CDC to develop case definitions for heroin and opioid overdoses for both SyS and EMS data. These drug overdose case definitions are compared between these two rapid surveillance systems, and further compared to emergency department (ED) hospital administrative claims billing data, to assess their face validity.Methods: The most recent available data were pulled from multiple hospitals in a large healthcare system serving an urban region of Kentucky. Definitions for acute heroin overdose were applied to all three sources. For SyS and ED data, definitions were queried against the same hospitals within this geographic region and aggregated to week-level totals. SyS and ED data are similar with the exception of additional textual information available in SyS (such as chief complaint). Our EMS definition of heroin overdose was loosely based on a draft definition that was produced by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, and relies more on textual analysis versus ICD10 codes used in SyS and ED data systems. While SyS and ED used the same hospitals as the frame of selection, EMS used incidents that occurred in the approximate catchment area served by those hospitals. Weekly totals from all three data sources were plotted in R studio with LOESS-smoothed trend lines. Unsmoothed times series plots also demonstrate highly correlated trends, but the smoothed trend lines are less cluttered and easier to interpret.Results: Visual interpretation of the LOESS-smoothed trend lines shows very similar trajectories among all three sources [Fig 1]. The resultant graph demonstrates that individually, the time courses described by SyS and EMS data track closely with the one observed in ED data. The absolute counts between the three sources showed some differences, as expected. The EMS system captures a slightly different cohort that may include people that do not go to the ED (observation patients, refused transport, etc.) and SyS/ED have slightly different definitions (as ED does not include a free-text chief complaint. These types of limitations are better explored through data linkage that may or may not include medical record review to establish ground truth.Conclusions: Public health surveillance of drug overdoses has traditionally relied on ED billing data. In most states, however, there is a lag of at least several months before this data becomes available for analysis. In some jurisdictions the delay may be considerably longer. Rapid surveillance data sources may allow for more timely identification of changes in overdose patterns at the local level. In addition, SyS/EMS can be used together to confirm that a spike seen in one rapid system is confirmed within the other, with relative ease.Though the comparison is a rather simple or crude visual analysis of three data systems at a common geographic level, there is still appears to be a common pattern among the three systems. While this does not carry the validity of cross-data matched analysis, it does provide some of the utility of looking at these system collective without match; and therefore may be of use to surveillance users that may be limited by de-identified data.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rene Borroto ◽  
Bill Williamson ◽  
Patrick Pitcher ◽  
Lance Ballester ◽  
Wendy Smith ◽  
...  

ObjectiveDescribe how the Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH) usessyndromic surveillance to initiate review by District Epidemiologists(DEs) to events that may warrant a public health response (1).IntroductionDPH uses its State Electronic Notifiable Disease SurveillanceSystem (SendSS) Syndromic Surveillance (SS) Module to collect,analyze and display results of emergency department patient chiefcomplaint data from hospitals throughout Georgia.MethodsDPH prepares a daily SS report, based upon the analysis ofdaily visits to 112 Emergency Department (EDs). The visits areclassified in 33 syndromes. Queries of chief complaint and dischargediagnosis are done using the internal query capability of SendSS-SSand programming in SAS/BASE. Charting of the absolute countsor percentage of ED visits by syndromes is done using the internalcharting capability of SendSS-SS. A daily SS report includes thefollowing sections:Statewide Emergency Department Visitsby Priority Syndromes(Bioterrorism, BloodyRespiratory,FeverRespiratory, FeverChest, FeverFluAdmit, FeverFluDeaths,VeryIll, andPoxRashFever, Botulism, Poison, BloodyDiarrhea,BloodyVomit, FeverGI, ILI, FeverFlu, RashFever, Diarrhea,Vomit).Statewide Flag Analysis: Is intended to detect statewideflags, by using theChartscapability in SendSS SS.Possible caseswith presumptive diagnosis of potentially notifiable diseases: Isintended to provide early-warning to the DEs of possible cases thatare reportable to public health immediately or within 7 days usingqueries in the Chief Complaint and Preliminary Diagnosis fields ofSendSS-SS.Possible clusters of illness: Since any cluster of illnessmust be reported immediately to DPH, this analysis is aimed atquerying and identifying possible clusters of patients with similarsymptoms (2).Possible travel-related illness: Is intended to identifypatients with symptoms and recent travel history.Other events ofinterest: Exposures to ill patients in institutional settings (e.g. chiefcomplaint indicates that other children in the daycare have similarsymptoms).Trend Analysis: Weekly analysis of seasonality andtrends of 14 syndromes. Finally, specific events are notified to andreviewed by the 18 DEs, who follow up by contacting the InfectionPreventionists of the hospitals to identify the patients using medicalrecords or other hospital-specific identification numbers and followup on the laboratory test results.ResultsSince 05/15/2016, 12 travel-related illnesses, 29 vaccine-preventable diseases, 14 clusters, and 3 chemical exposures havebeen notified to DEs. For instance, a cluster of chickenpox in childrenwas identified after the DE contacted the Infection Preventionist ofa hospital, who provided the DE with the laboratory results and thephysician notes about the symptoms of the patients. These actionshave resulted in earlier awareness of single cases or cluster of illness,prompt reporting of notifiable diseases, and successful interactionbetween DEs and health care providers. In addition, SS continues totrack the onset, peak, and decline of seasonal illnesses.ConclusionsThe implementation of SS in the State of Georgia is helping withthe timely detection and early responses to disease events and couldprove useful in reducing the disease burden caused by a bioterroristattack.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary M. Stein ◽  
Sophia Crossen

ObjectiveTo compare and contrast two ESSENCE syndrome definition query methods and establish best practices for syndrome definition creation.IntroductionThe Kansas Syndromic Surveillance Program (KSSP) utilizes the ESSENCE v.1.20 program provided by the National Syndromic Surveillance Program to view and analyze Kansas Emergency Department (ED) data.Methods that allow an ESSENCE user to query both the Discharge Diagnosis (DD) and Chief Complaint (CC) fields simultaneously allow for more specific and accurate syndromic surveillance definitions. As ESSENCE use increases, two common methodologies have been developed for querying the data in this way.The first is a query of the field named “CC and DD.” The CC and DD field contains a concatenation of the parsed patient chief complaint and the discharge diagnosis. The discharge diagnosis consists of the last non-null value for that patient visit ID and the chief complaint parsed is the first non-null chief complaint value for that patient visit ID that is parsed by the ESSENCE platform. For this comparison, this method shall be called the CCDD method.The second method involves a query of the fields named, “Chief Complaint History” and “Discharge Diagnosis History.” While the first requires only one field be queried, this method queries the CC History and DD History fields, combines the resulting data and de-duplicates this final data set by the C_BioSense_ID. Chief Complaint History is a list of all chief complaint values related to a singular ED visit, and Discharge Diagnosis History is the same concept, except involving all Discharge Diagnosis values. For this comparison, this method shall be called the CCDDHX method.While both methods are based on the same query concept, each method can yield different results.MethodsA program was created in R Studio to analyze a user-provided query.Simple queries were randomly generated. Twenty randomly generated queries were run through the R Studio program and disparities between data sets were recorded. All KSSP production facility ED visits during the month of August 2017 were analyzed.Secondly, three queries actively utilized in KSSP practice were run through the program. These queries were Firework-Related Injuries, Frostbite and Cold Exposure, and Rabies Exposure. The queries were run on all KSSP production facility ED visits, and coincided with the timeline of relevant exposures.ResultsIn the random query trials, an average of 5.4% of the cases captured using the CCDD field method were unique and not captured by the same query in the CCDDHX method. Using the CCDDHX method, an average of 6.1% of the cases captured were unique and not captured by the CCDD method.When using the program to compare syndromes from actively utilized KSSP practice, the disparity between the two methods was much lower.Firework-Related InjuriesDuring the time period queried, the CCDD method returned 171 cases and the CCDDHX method returned 169 cases. All CCDDHX method cases were captured by the CCDD method. The CCDD method returned 2 cases not captured by the CCDDHX method. These two cases were confirmed as true positive firework-related injury cases.Frostbite and Cold ExposureDuring the time period queried, CCDD method returned 328 cases and the CCDDHX method returned 344 cases. The CCDDHX method captured 16 cases that the CCDD method did not. The CCDD method did not capture any additional cases when compared to the CCDDHX method. After review, 10 (62.5%) of these 16 cases not captured by the CCDD method were true positive cases.Rabies ExposureDuring the time period queried, the CCDD method returned 474 cases and the CCDDHX method returned 473 cases. The CCDDHX method captured 7 cases that the CCDD method did not. The CCDD method returned 8 cases not captured by the CCDDHX method. After review, the 7 unique cases captured in the CCDDHX method contained 3 (42.9%) true positive cases and 3 (37.5%) of the 8 cases not captured by the CCDDHX method were true positives.ConclusionsThe twenty random queries showed a disparity between methods. When utilizing the same program to analyze three actively utilized KSSP definitions, both methods yielded similar results with a much smaller disparity. The CCDDHX method inherently requires more steps and requires more queries to be run through ESSENCE, making the method less timely and more difficult to share. Despite these downsides, CCDDHX will capture cases that appear throughout the history of field updates.Further variance between methods is likely due to the CCDD field utilizing the ESSENCE-processed CC while the CCDDHX field utilizes the CC verbatim as produced by the ED facility. This allows the CCDD method to tap into the powerful spelling correction and abbreviation-parsing steps that ESSENCE employs, but incorrect machine corrections and replacements, while rare, can negatively affect syndrome definition performance.The greater disparity in methods for the random queries may be due to the short (3 letter) text portion of the queries. Short segments are more likely to be found in multiple words than text of actual queries. Utilizing larger randomly generated text segments may resolve this and is a planned next step for this research.Our next step is to share the R Studio program to allow further replication. The Kansas Syndromic Surveillance Program is also continuing similar research to ensure that best practices are being met. 


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Girum S. Ejigu ◽  
Kakshmi Radhakrishnan ◽  
Paul McMurray ◽  
Roseanne English

ObjectiveReview the impact of applying regular data quality checks to assess completeness of core data elements that support syndromic surveillance.IntroductionThe National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP) is a community focused collaboration among federal, state, and local public health agencies and partners for timely exchange of syndromic data. These data, captured in nearly real time, are intended to improve the nation's situational awareness and responsiveness to hazardous events and disease outbreaks. During CDC’s previous implementation of a syndromic surveillance system (BioSense 2), there was a reported lack of transparency and sharing of information on the data processing applied to data feeds, encumbering the identification and resolution of data quality issues. The BioSense Governance Group Data Quality Workgroup paved the way to rethink surveillance data flow and quality. Their work and collaboration with state and local partners led to NSSP redesigning the program’s data flow. The new data flow provided a ripe opportunity for NSSP analysts to study the data landscape (e.g., capturing of HL7 messages and core data elements), assess end-to-end data flow, and make adjustments to ensure all data being reported were processed, stored, and made accessible to the user community. In addition, NSSP extensively documented the new data flow, providing the transparency the community needed to better understand the disposition of facility data. Even with a new and improved data flow, data quality issues that were issues in the past, but went unreported, remained issues in the new data. However, these issues were now identified. The newly designed data flow provided opportunities to report and act on issues found in the data unlike previous versions. Therefore, an important component of the NSSP data flow was the implementation of regularly scheduled standard data quality checks, and release of standard data quality reports summarizing data quality findings.MethodsNSSP data was assessed for the national-level completeness of chief complaint and discharge diagnosis data. Completeness is the rate of non- null values (Batini et al., 2009). It was defined as the percent of visits (e.g., emergency department, urgent care center) with a non-null value found among the one or more records associated with the visit. National completeness rates for visits in 2016 were compared with completeness rates of visits in 2017 (a partial year including visits through August 2017). In addition, facility-level progress was quantified after scoring each facility based on the percent completeness change between 2016 and 2017. Legacy data processed prior to introducing the new NSSP data flow were not included in this assessment.ResultsNationally, the percent completeness of chief complaint for visits in 2016 was 82.06% (N=58,192,721), and the percent completeness of chief complaint for visits in 2017 was 87.15% (N=80,603,991). Of the 2,646 facilities that sent visits data in 2016 and 2017, 114 (4.31%) facilities showed an increase of at least 10% in chief complaint completeness in 2017 compared with 2016. As for discharge diagnosis, national results showed the percent completeness of discharge diagnosis for 2016 visits was 50.83% (N=36,048,334), and the percent completeness of discharge diagnosis for 2017 was 59.23% (N=54,776,310). Of the 2,646 facilities that sent data for visits in 2016 and 2017, 306 (11.56%) facilities showed more than a 10% increase in percent completeness of discharge diagnosis in 2017 compared with 2016.ConclusionsNationally, the percent completeness of chief complaint for visits in 2016 was 82.06% (N=58,192,721), and the percent completeness of chief complaint for visits in 2017 was 87.15% (N=80,603,991). Of the 2,646 facilities that sent visits data in 2016 and 2017, 114 (4.31%) facilities showed an increase of at least 10% in chief complaint completeness in 2017 compared with 2016. As for discharge diagnosis, national results showed the percent completeness of discharge diagnosis for 2016 visits was 50.83% (N=36,048,334), and the percent completeness of discharge diagnosis for 2017 was 59.23% (N=54,776,310). Of the 2,646 facilities that sent data for visits in 2016 and 2017, 306 (11.56%) facilities showed more than a 10% increase in percent completeness of discharge diagnosis in 2017 compared with 2016.ReferencesBatini, C., Cappiello. C., Francalanci, C. and Maurino, A. (2009) Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Comput. Surv., 41(3). 1-52.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document