首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings >Comparative Analysis of the VA/Kaiser and NLM CORE Problem Subsets: An Empirical Study Based on Problem Frequency
【2h】

Comparative Analysis of the VA/Kaiser and NLM CORE Problem Subsets: An Empirical Study Based on Problem Frequency

机译:VA / Kaiser和NLM CORE问题子集的比较分析:基于问题频率的实证研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The problem list is a critical component of the electronic medical record, with implications for clinical care, provider communication, clinical decision support, quality measurement and research. However, many of its benefits depend on the use of coded terminologies. Two standard terminologies (ICD-9 and SNOMED-CT) are available for problem documentation, and two SNOMED-CT subsets (VA/KP and CORE) are available for SNOMED-CT users. We set out to examine these subsets, characterize their overlap and measure their coverage. We applied the subsets to a random sample of 100,000 records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital to determine the proportion of problems covered. Though CORE is smaller (5,814 terms vs. 17,761 terms for VA/KP), 94.8% of coded problem entries from BWH were in the CORE subset, while only 84.0% of entries had matches in VA/KP (p<0.001). Though both subsets had reasonable coverage, CORE was superior in our sample, and had fewer clinically significant gaps.
机译:问题清单是电子病历的重要组成部分,对临床护理,提供者沟通,临床决策支持,质量测量和研究具有重要意义。但是,其许多好处取决于编码术语的使用。两个标准术语(ICD-9和SNOMED-CT)可用于问题文档,两个SNOMED-CT子集(VA / KP和CORE)可用于SNOMED-CT用户。我们着手研究这些子集,表征它们的重叠并衡量其覆盖范围。我们将这些子集应用于布莱根妇女医院的100,000条记录的随机样本中,以确定所覆盖问题的比例。尽管CORE较小(VA / KP为5814项,而VA / KP为17761项),但来自BWH的编码问题条目的94.8%位于CORE子集中,而VA / KP中只有84.0%的条目具有匹配项(p <0.001)。尽管两个子集都有合理的覆盖范围,但在我们的样本中CORE优越,并且临床上的显着差异也更少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号