Identification of Postpartum Depression in Electronic Health Records: Validation in a Large Integrated Health Care System (Preprint)

Author:

Slezak JeffORCID,Sacks DavidORCID,Chiu VickiORCID,Avila ChantalORCID,Khadka NehaaORCID,Chen Jiu-ChiuanORCID,Wu JunORCID,Getahun DariosORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of electronic health records (EHRs) for identifying postpartum depression (PPD) is not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of PPD reporting in EHRs and compare the quality of PPD data collected before and after the implementation of the <i>International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision</i> (<i>ICD-10</i>) coding in the health care system.

METHODS

Information on PPD was extracted from a random sample of 400 eligible Kaiser Permanente Southern California patients’ EHRs. Clinical diagnosis codes and pharmacy records were abstracted for two time periods: January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2014 (<i>International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision</i> [<i>ICD-9</i>] period), and January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019 (<i>ICD-10</i> period). Manual chart reviews of clinical records for PPD were considered the gold standard and were compared with corresponding electronically coded diagnosis and pharmacy records using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Kappa statistic was calculated to measure agreement.

RESULTS

Overall agreement between the identification of depression using combined diagnosis codes and pharmacy records with that of medical record review was strong (κ=0.85, sensitivity 98.3%, specificity 83.3%, PPV 93.7%, NPV 95.0%). Using only diagnosis codes resulted in much lower sensitivity (65.4%) and NPV (50.5%) but good specificity (88.6%) and PPV (93.5%). Separately, examining agreement between chart review and electronic coding among diagnosis codes and pharmacy records showed sensitivity, specificity, and NPV higher with prescription use records than with clinical diagnosis coding for PPD, 96.5% versus 72.0%, 96.5% versus 65.0%, and 96.5% versus 65.0%, respectively. There was no notable difference in agreement between <i>ICD-9</i> (overall κ=0.86) and <i>ICD-10</i> (overall κ=0.83) coding periods.

CONCLUSIONS

PPD is not reliably captured in the clinical diagnosis coding of EHRs. The accuracy of PPD identification can be improved by supplementing clinical diagnosis with pharmacy use records. The completeness of PPD data remained unchanged after the implementation of the <i>ICD-10</i> diagnosis coding.

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

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