Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11(05): 725-732
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718374
Research Article

Accuracy of an Electronic Health Record Patient Linkage Module Evaluated between Neighboring Academic Health Care Centers

Mindy K. Ross
1   Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
,
Javier Sanz
2   Department of Medicine, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
,
Brian Tep
3   Department of Enterprise Information Services, Advanced Analytic Services, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, United States
,
Rob Follett
2   Department of Medicine, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
,
Spencer L. Soohoo
4   Department of Biomedical Sciences, Division of Informatics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, United States
,
Douglas S. Bell
5   Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was supported by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, (grant no.: UL1TR001881).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Patients often seek medical treatment among different health care organizations, which can lead to redundant tests and treatments. One electronic health record (EHR) platform, Epic Systems, uses a patient linkage tool called Care Everywhere (CE), to match patients across institutions. To the extent that such linkages accurately identify shared patients across organizations, they would hold potential for improving care.

Objective This study aimed to understand how accurate the CE tool with default settings is to identify identical patients between two neighboring academic health care systems in Southern California, The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

Methods We studied CE patient linkage queries received at UCLA from Cedars-Sinai between November 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. We constructed datasets comprised of linkages (“successful” queries), as well as nonlinkages (“unsuccessful” queries) during this time period. To identify false positive linkages, we screened the “successful” linkages for potential errors and then manually reviewed all that screened positive. To identify false-negative linkages, we applied our own patient matching algorithm to the “unsuccessful” queries and then manually reviewed a sample to identify missed patient linkages.

Results During the 6-month study period, Cedars-Sinai attempted to link 181,567 unique patient identities to records at UCLA. CE made 22,923 “successful” linkages and returned 158,644 “unsuccessful” queries among these patients. Manual review of the screened “successful” linkages between the two institutions determined there were no false positives. Manual review of a sample of the “unsuccessful” queries (n = 623), demonstrated an extrapolated false-negative rate of 2.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6–4.4%).

Conclusion We found that CE provided very reliable patient matching across institutions. The system missed a few linkages, but the false-negative rate was low and there were no false-positive matches over 6 months of use between two nearby institutions.

Keywords

electronic health records/standards - health information exchange/standards - medical record linkage/methods

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

No human subjects were involved in the project.




Publication History

Received: 03 June 2020

Accepted: 27 August 2020

Article published online:
04 November 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Cebul RD, Rebitzer JB, Taylor LJ, Votruba ME. Organizational fragmentation and care quality in the U.S healthcare system. J Econ Perspect 2008; 22 (04) 93-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Frandsen BR, Joynt KE, Rebitzer JB, Jha AK. Care fragmentation, quality, and costs among chronically ill patients. Am J Manag Care 2015; 21 (05) 355-362
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pellegrin K, Chan F, Pagoria N, Jolson-Oakes S, Uyeno R, Levin A. A Statewide Medication Management System: Health Information Exchange to Support Drug Therapy Optimization by Pharmacists across the Continuum of Care. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 1-10
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Haug PJ, Narus SP, Bledsoe J, Huff S. Promoting national and international standards to build interoperable clinical applications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2018; 2018: 555-563
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 DeSalvo KB, Dinkler AN, Stevens L. The US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology: Progress and Promise for the Future at the 10-Year Mark. Ann Emerg Med 2015; 66 (05) 507-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Duggal R, Khatri SK, Shukla B. Improving patient matching: single patient view for Clinical Decision Support using Big Data analytics. Paper presented at: 2015 4th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (ICRITO; Trends and Future Directions); 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Harron K, Goldstein H, Dibben C. , eds. Methodological Developments in Data Linkage. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons; 2015
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Martin TJ, Ranney ML, Dorroh J, Asselin N, Sarkar IN. Health Information Exchange in Emergency Medical Services. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (04) 884-891
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kruse CS, Marquez G, Nelson D, Palomares O. The Use of Health Information Exchange to Augment Patient Handoff in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (04) 752-771
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cummins MR, Ranade-Kharkar P, Johansen C. et al. Simple Workflow Changes Enable Effective Patient Identity Matching in Poison Control. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 553-557
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Parker CJ, Adler-Milstein J. Errors related to health information exchange. In: Agarwal A. , ed. Safety of Health IT: Clinical Case Studies. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2016: 153-165
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Care Everywhere 101: Epic Systems Care Everywhere Training Companion 2015. Available at: https://galaxy.epic.com/?#Browse/page=8400!35!240!3729927 (access via login)
    PubMed
  • 13 Grannis SJ, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Analysis of identifier performance using a deterministic linkage algorithm. Proc AMIA Symp 2002; 305-309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kho AN, Cashy JP, Jackson KL. et al. Design and implementation of a privacy preserving electronic health record linkage tool in Chicago. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (05) 1072-1080
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Vest JR, Kaushal R, Silver MD, Hentel K, Kern LM. Health information exchange and the frequency of repeat medical imaging. Am J Manag Care 2014; 20 (11 Spec No. 17): eSP16-eSP24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Williams C, Mostashari F, Mertz K, Hogin E, Atwal P. From the Office of the National Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012; 31 (03) 527-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Siljander B. Assessing the impact of the medicare access and CHIP reauthorization act: the repeal of the SGR and beyond. Health Law. 2014; 27: 26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Eden KB, Totten AM, Kassakian SZ. et al. Barriers and facilitators to exchanging health information: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2016; 88: 44-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Holmgren AJ, Patel V, Adler-Milstein J. Progress in interoperability: measuring us hospitals' engagement in sharing patient data. Health Aff (Millwood) 2017; 36 (10) 1820-1827
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Everson J, Kocher KE, Adler-Milstein J. Health information exchange associated with improved emergency department care through faster accessing of patient information from outside organizations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (e1): e103-e110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Winden TJ, Boland LL, Frey NG, Satterlee PA, Hokanson JS. Care everywhere, a point-to-point HIE tool: utilization and impact on patient care in the ED. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (02) 388-401
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ruley M, Walker V, Studeny J, Coustasse A. The nationwide health information network: the case of the expansion of health information exchanges in the United States. Health Care Manag (Frederick) 2018; 37 (04) 333-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Just BH, Marc D, Munns M, Sandefer R. Why patient matching is a challenge: research on master patient index (MPI) data discrepancies in key identifying fields. Perspect Health Inf Manag 2016; 13 (Spring): 1e
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Churches T, Christen P. Some methods for blindfolded record linkage. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2004; 4: 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dusserre L, Quantin C, Bouzelat H. A one way public key cryptosystem for the linkage of nominal files in epidemiological studies. Medinfo 1995; 8 (Pt 1): 644-647
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Adam N, White T, Shafiq B, Vaidya J, He X. Privacy preserving integration of health care data. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 2007: 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Neubauer T, Heurix J. A methodology for the pseudonymization of medical data. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (03) 190-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kuzu M, Kantarcioglu M, Durham EA, Toth C, Malin B. A practical approach to achieve private medical record linkage in light of public resources. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (02) 285-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vatsalan D, Christen P. Privacy-preserving matching of similar patients. J Biomed Inform 2016; 59: 285-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Toth C, Durham E, Kantarcioglu M, Xue Y, Malin B. SOEMPI: a secure open enterprise master patient index software toolkit for private record linkage. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2014; 2014: 1105-1114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Randall SM, Ferrante AM, Boyd JH, Bauer JK, Semmens JB. Privacy-preserving record linkage on large real world datasets. J Biomed Inform 2014; 50: 205-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Brown AP, Borgs C, Randall SM, Schnell R. Evaluating privacy-preserving record linkage using cryptographic long-term keys and multibit trees on large medical datasets. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hersh W, Totten A, Eden K. et al. Health information exchange. Evidence report/technology assessment 2015; 220: 1-465
    PubMedGoogle Scholar