• J Public Health Manag Pract · May 2012

    Comparative Study

    Comparison of electronic laboratory reports, administrative claims, and electronic health record data for acute viral hepatitis surveillance.

    • Joshua Allen-Dicker and Michael Klompas.
    • Department of Medicine, Beth-Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
    • J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012 May 1; 18 (3): 209-14.

    ContextPublic health surveillance systems for acute hepatitis are limited: clinician reporting is insensitive and electronic laboratory reporting is nonspecific. Insurance claims and electronic health records are potential alternative sources.ObjectiveTo compare the utility of laboratory data, diagnosis codes, and electronic health record combination data (current and prior viral hepatitis studies, liver function tests, and diagnosis codes) for acute hepatitis A and B surveillance.DesignRetrospective chart review.SettingMassachusetts ambulatory practice serving 350 000 patients per year.ParticipantsAll patients seen between 1990 and 2008.Main Outcome MeasuresSensitivity and positive predictive value of immunoglobulin M (IgM), International Classification of Disease-Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes, and combination electronic health record data for acute hepatitis A and B.ResultsDuring the study period, there were 111 patients with positive hepatitis A IgMs, 154 with acute hepatitis A ICD-9 codes, and 77 with positive IgM and elevated liver function tests. On review, 79 cases were confirmed. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were 100% and 71% (95% confidence interval, 62%-79%) for IgM, 94% (92%-100%) and 48% (40%-56%) for ICD-9 codes and 97% (92%-100%) and 100% (96%-100%) for combination electronic health record data. There were 14 patients with positive hepatitis B core IgMs, 2564 with acute hepatitis B ICD-9 codes, and 125 with suggestive combinations of electronic health record data. Acute hepatitis B was confirmed in 122 patients. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were 9.4% (5.2%-16%) and 86% (60%-98%) for hepatitis B core IgM, 73% (65%-80%) and 3.6% (2.9%-4.4%) for ICD-9 codes, and 96% (91%-99%) and 98% (94%-99%) for electronic health record data.ConclusionsLaboratory surveillance using IgM tests overestimates the burden of acute hepatitis A and underestimates the burden of acute hepatitis B. Claims data are subject to many false positives. Electronic health record data are both sensitive and predictive. Electronic health record-based surveillance systems merit development.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…