Structured Chart Review: Assessment of a Structured Chart Review Methodology

Author:

Siems Ashley1,Banks Russell2,Holubkov Richard2,Meert Kathleen L.3,Bauerfeld Christian3,Beyda David4,Berg Robert A.5,Bulut Yonca6,Burd Randall S.1,Carcillo Joseph7,Dean J. Michael2,Gradidge Eleanor4,Hall Mark W.8,McQuillen Patrick S.9,Mourani Peter M.10,Newth Christopher J.L.11,Notterman Daniel A.12,Priestley Margaret A.5,Sapru Anil6,Wessel David L.1,Yates Andrew R.8,Zuppa Athena F.5,Pollack Murray M.1

Affiliation:

1. School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University and Children’s National Health System, Washington, District of Columbia;

2. School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah;

3. Wayne State University and Children’s Hospital of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan;

4. College of Medicine–Phoenix, University of Arizona and Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona;

5. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

6. University of California, Los Angeles and University of California, Los Angeles Mattel Children’s Hospital, California;

7. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;

8. Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio;

9. University of California, San Francisco and University of California, San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital, San Francisco, California;

10. University of Colorado and Children’s Hospital of Colorado, Denver, Colorado;

11. Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; and

12. Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chart reviews are frequently used for research, care assessments, and quality improvement activities despite an absence of data on reliability and validity. We aim to describe a structured chart review methodology and to establish its validity and reliability. METHODS: A generalizable structured chart review methodology was designed to evaluate causes of morbidity or mortality and to identify potential therapeutic advances. The review process consisted of a 2-tiered approach with a primary review completed by a site physician and a short secondary review completed by a central physician. A total of 327 randomly selected cases of known mortality or new morbidities were reviewed. Validity was assessed by using postreview surveys with a Likert scale. Reliability was assessed by percent agreement and interrater reliability. RESULTS: The primary reviewers agreed or strongly agreed in 94.9% of reviews that the information to form a conclusion about pathophysiological processes and therapeutic advances could be adequately found. They agreed or strongly agreed in 93.2% of the reviews that conclusions were easy to make, and confidence in the process was 94.2%. Secondary reviewers made modifications to 36.6% of cases. Duplicate reviews (n = 41) revealed excellent percent agreement for the causes (80.5%–100%) and therapeutic advances (68.3%–100%). κ statistics were strong for the pathophysiological categories but weaker for the therapeutic categories. CONCLUSIONS: A structured chart review by knowledgeable primary reviewers, followed by a brief secondary review, can be valid and reliable.

Publisher

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

Subject

Pediatrics,General Medicine,Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3