Key result
A 4-part data quality monitoring procedure for chart abstraction yielded an overall kappa of 0.91 and 94.3% agreement across 38 items, signifying excellent interrater reliability.
Cross-Sectional (n=132)
Single-blind
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A 5% sampling of charts for quality control using IRR analysis yielded excellent agreement, providing a benchmark for medical chart review studies.
PURPOSE: We assessed interrater reliability (IRR) of chart abstractors within a randomized trial of cardiovascular care in primary care. We report our findings, and outline issues and provide recommendations related to determining sample size, frequency of verification, and minimum thresholds for 2 measures of IRR: the κ statistic and percent agreement. METHODS: We designed a data quality monitoring procedure having 4 parts: use of standardized protocols and forms, extensive training, continuous monitoring of IRR, and a quality improvement feedback mechanism. Four abstractors checked a 5% sample of charts at 3 time points for a predefined set of indicators of the quality of care. We set our quality threshold for IRR at a κ of 0.75, a percent agreement of 95%, or both. RESULTS: Abstractors reabstracted a sample of charts in 16 of 27 primary care practices, checking a total of 132 charts with 38 indicators per chart. The overall κ across all items was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.92) and the overall percent agreement was 94.3%, signifying excellent agreement between abstractors. We gave feedback to the abstractors to highlight items that had a κ of less than 0.70 or a percent agreement less than 95%. No practice had to have its charts abstracted again because of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: A 5% sampling of charts for quality control using IRR analysis yielded κ and agreement levels that met or exceeded our quality thresholds. Using 3 time points during the chart audit phase allows for early quality control as well as ongoing quality monitoring. Our results can be used as a guide and benchmark for other medical chart review studies in primary care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liddy et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=132). 4-part data quality monitoring procedure was evaluated on Overall interrater reliability (kappa statistic) across 38 items (kappa 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92). A 4-part data quality monitoring procedure for chart abstraction yielded an overall kappa of 0.91 and 94.3% agreement across 38 items, signifying excellent interrater reliability.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: