Estimating Morbidity Ratesfrom Electronic Medical Records in General Practice

Summary

Objectives: In this study, we evaluated the internal validity of EPICON, an application for grouping ICPCcoded diagnoses from electronic medical records into episodes of care. These episodes are used to estimate morbidity rates in general practice.

Methods: Morbidity rates based on EPICON were compared to a gold standard; i.e. the rates from the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. We calculated the deviation from the gold standard for 677 prevalence and 681 incidence rates, based on the full dataset. Additionally, we examined the effect of casebased reasoning within EPICON using a comparison to a simple, not case-based method (EPI-0). Finally, we used a split sample procedure to evaluate the performance of EPICON.

Results: Morbidity rates that are based on EPICON deviate only slightly from the gold standard and show no systematic bias. The effect of case-based reasoning within EPICON is evident. The addition of case-based reasoning to the grouping system reduced both systematic and random error. Although the morbidity rates that are based on the split sample procedure show no systematic bias, they do deviate more from the gold standard than morbidity rates for the full dataset.

Conclusions: Results from this study indicate that the internal validity of EPICON is adequate. Assuming that the standard is gold, EPICON provides valid outcomes for this study population. EPICON seems useful for registries in general practice for the purpose of estimating morbidity rates.

Keywords

Computerized medical record - family practice - incidence - prevalence - artificial intelligence

• References

• 1 Boerma WG. Profiles of general practice in Europe (dissertation). Nivel; 2003
• 2 Linden M, Gothe H, Ormel J. Pathways to care and psychological problems of general practice patients in a “gate keeper” and an “open access” health care system. A comparison of Germany and the Netherlands. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2003; 38: 690-697.
• 3 Gijsen R, Poos MJJC. Using registries in general practice to estimate countrywide morbidity in the Netherlands. Public Health 2006; 120: 923-936.
• 4 WONCA Classification Committee.. An international glossary for general/family practice. Fam Pract 1995; 12 (03) 341-369.
• 5 Biermans MCJ, De Bakker DH, Verheij RA, Gravestein JV, Van der Linden MW, De Vries Robbé PF. Development of a case-based system for grouping diagnoses in general practice. Int J Med Inform Epub 2007 Sep. 14.
• 6 Westert GP, Jabaaij L, Schellevis FG. (editors). Morbidity, performance and quality in primary care: Dutch general practice on stage. Oxon: Radcliffe; 2006
• 7 van der Linden M, Westert GP, De Bakker DH, Schellevis FG. The second Dutch national survey of general practice. Health and problems in the Dutch population and in general practice. (Tweede Nationale Studie naar ziekten en verrichtingen in de huisartspraktijk. Klachten en aandoeningen in de bevolking en in de huisartspraktijk). Utrecht, Bilthoven: NIVEL, RIVM; 2004. Utrecht: Nivel; 2004.
• 8 Westert GP, Schellevis FG, de Bakker DH, Groenewegen PP, Bensing JM, van der Zee J. Monitoring health inequalities through general practice: the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice. Eur J Public Health 2005; 15 (01) 59-65.
• 9 Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 515-524.
• 10 Tacken MAJB. Quality of preventive performance in general practice: the use of routinely collected data (dissertation). Radboud University Nijmegen; 2005
• 11 Verheij RA, Jabaaij L, Abrahamse H, Van den Hoogen H, Braspenning J, Van Althuis T. Netherlands Information Network of General Practice. Facts and figures on Dutch GP care (website on the internet, updated 2006, Aug 1; cited 2006, Nov 30). Available from: http://www.linh.nl
• 12 Lamberts H, Woods M. editors. International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987
• 13 Kenens R, Hingstman L. Figures from the registration of general practitioners. (Cijfers uit de registratie van huisartsen). Utrecht: Nivel; 2001
• 14 Statistics Netherlands (database on the internet).. Voorburg/Heerlen: Statistics Netherlands. (Updated daily; cited 2005 Oct 14.) Available from: http://www.cbs.nl
• 15 Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?. Statist Med 2000; 19: 453-473.
• 16 Steyerberg EW, Harrell Jr FE, Borsboom GJJM, Eijkemans MJC, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JDF. Internal validation of predictive models: Efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 774-781.