Browsing by Subject "disease surveillance"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Automating Provider Reporting of Communicable Disease Cases using Health Information Technology
    (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2014-04-11) Dixon, Brian E.; Lai, Patrick T. S.; Kirbiyik, Uzay; Grannis, Shaun J.
    Introduction Disease surveillance is a core public health (PH) function, which enables PH authorities to monitor disease outbreak and develop programs and policies to reduce disease burden. To manage and adjudicate cases of suspected communicable disease, PH workers gather data elements about persons, clinical care, and providers from various clinical sources, including providers, laboratories, among others. Current processes are paper-based and often yield incomplete and untimely reporting across different diseases requiring time-consuming follow-up by PH authorities to get needed information. Health information technology (HIT) refers to a wide range of technologies used in health care settings, including electronic health records and laboratory information systems. Health information exchange (HIE) involves electronic sharing of data and information between HIT systems, including those used in PH. Previous research has shown that using HIE to electronically report laboratory results to PH can improve surveillance practice, yet there has been little utilization of HIE for improving provider-based disease reporting [1]. Methods Our study uses an intervention to electronically pre-populate provider-based communicable disease case reporting forms with existing clinical, laboratory and patient data available through one of the largest and oldest HIE infrastructures in the U.S., the Indiana Network for Patient Care. Evaluation of the intervention will be conducted utilizing mixed methods in a concurrent design framework in which qualitative methods are embedded within the quantitative methods. Quantitative data will include reporting rates, timeliness and burden and report completeness and accuracy, analyzed using interrupted time-series and other pre-post comparisons. Qualitative data regarding pre-post provider perceptions of report completeness, accuracy, and timeliness, reporting burden, data quality, benefits, utility, adoption, utilization and impact on reporting workflow will be collected using semi-structured interviews and open-ended survey items. Data will be triangulated to find convergence or agreement by cross-validating results to produce a contextualized portrayal of the facilitators and barriers to implementation and use of the intervention. Results The intervention has been implemented in seven primary care clinics in the metropolitan Indianapolis area plus one rural clinic in Edinburgh. Analysis of baseline data shows that provider-based reports vary in their completeness, yet they contain critical information not available from laboratory information systems [2]. Furthermore, PH workers access a range of sources to gather the data they need to investigate disease cases [3]. Discussion and Conclusion By applying mixed research methods and measuring context, facilitators and barriers, and individual, organizational and data quality factors that may impact adoption and utilization of the intervention, we will document whether and how the intervention streamlines provider-based manual reporting workflows, lowers barriers to reporting, increases data completeness, improves reporting timeliness and captures a greater portion of communicable disease burden in the community. Early results are promising, and continued evaluation will be completed over the next 24 months.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluating the Completeness of Data Elements of Provider Reporting on Indiana's Communicable Disease Reports
    (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, 2014-04-11) Lai, Patrick T. S.; Gujjula, Kavya; Grannis, Shaun J.; Dixon, Brian E.
    Objective To examine the completeness of data elements required for notifiable disease surveillance from official, provider-based reports submitted to a local health department. Introduction Completeness of public health information is essential for the accurate assessment of community health progress and disease surveillance. Yet challenges persist with respect to the level of completeness that public health agencies receive in reports submitted by health care providers. Missing and incomplete data can jeopardize information reliability and quality resulting in inaccurate disease evaluation and management (1). Additionally, incomplete data can prolong the time required for disease investigators to complete their work on a reported case. Thus, it is important to determine where the scarcity of information is coming from to recognize the characteristics of provider reporting. Methods Data from 1,195 unique patient cases across 7 notifiable diseases were abstracted from official reporting forms (2) submitted to a local health department serving the Indianapolis metropolitan area. The selected diseases were chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, salmonella, histoplasmosis, hepatitis B-acute, and hepatitis C-chronic. Table 1 represents the duration and collection period for each of the selected diseases. Diseases were purposely chosen to represent the broad range managed by local health departments. Diseases were purposely chosen to represent the broad range managed by local health departments. A set of data elements consisting of patient, clinical, and provider information was then evaluated for completeness. The level of completeness was determined using a classification method similar to that used by Dixon et al. (3). Fields were considered complete if they contained a value; the recorded value was not validated for accuracy. Results Table 2 depicts the level of completeness for the selected data elements across the target diseases. Completeness levels and percentages varied by disease and data element with completeness being higher for patient demographic information (e.g., name, address) than provider demographics (e.g., name, clinic address). The majority of data elements for patient demographics were categorized as mostly to always complete. Conclusion It is essential that provider reports are completed in a thorough and timely manner. To increase documentation of provider information, analyses of provider characteristics such as workflow patterns, organizational constraints, and information needs are essential to understand the completeness level of provider information reporting. This will allow us to develop implementation of strategies to increase completeness of reporting across all data elements necessary to assess and investigate notifiable diseases.