4.1 Article

Assessing Electronic Note Quality Using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9)

期刊

APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS
卷 3, 期 2, 页码 164-174

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2011-11-RA-0070

关键词

Electronic health record; documentation; note; quality; instrument

资金

  1. National Library of Medicine [K22 LM008805]
  2. Health Resources and Services Administration [D11HP07346]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To refine the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI) and test the validity and reliability of the 9-item version (PDQI-9). Methods: Three sets each of admission notes, progress notes and discharge summaries were evaluated by two groups of physicians using the PDQI-9 and an overall general assessment: one gold standard group consisting of program or assistant program directors (n = 7), and the other of attending physicians or chief residents (n = 24). The main measures were criterion-related validity (correlation coefficients between Total PDQI-9 scores and 1-item General Impression scores for each note), discriminant validity (comparison of PDQI-9 scores on notes rated as best and worst using 1-item General Impression score), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)). Results: The results were criterion-related validity (r = -0.678 to 0.856), discriminant validity (best versus worst note, t = 9.3, p = 0.003), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas = 0.87-0.94), and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.83, CI = 0.72-0.91). Conclusion: The results support the criterion-related and discriminant validity, internal consistency reliability, and inter-rater reliability of the PDQI-9 for rating the quality of electronic physician notes. Tools for assessing note redundancy are required to complement use of PDQI-9. Trials of the PDQI-9 at other institutions, of different size, using different EHRs, and incorporating additional physician specialties and notes of other healthcare providers are needed to confirm its generalizability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据