Assessing the accuracy of electronic health record gender identity and REaL data at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Collection of accurate patient race, ethnicity, preferred language (REaL) and gender identity in the electronic health record (EHR) is essential for equitable and inclusive care. Misidentification of these factors limits quality measurement of health outcomes in at-risk populations. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the accuracy of REaL and gender identity data at our institution.

METHODS

A survey was administered to 117 random patients, selected from prior day admissions at a large academic medical center in urban central New York. Patients (or guardians) self-reported REaL and gender identity data, selecting from current EHR options. Variables were coded for the presence or absence of a difference from data recorded in the EHR.

RESULTS

Race was misreported in the EHR for 13% of patients and ethnicity for 6%. For most White and Black patients, race was concordant. However, self-identified data for all multiracial patients were discordant with the EHR. Most Non-Hispanic patients had ethnicity correctly documented. Some Hispanic patients were misidentified. There was a significant association between reporting both a race and an ethnicity which differed from the EHR on chi square analysis (P < 0.001). Of those who reported an alternative ethnicity, 71.4% also reported an alternative race. Gender identity was missing for most patients and 11% of the gender-identity entries present in the EHR were discordant with the patient's self-identity. Preferred language was 100% concordant with the EHR.

CONCLUSIONS

At an academic medical center, multiracial and Hispanic patients were more likely to have their demographics misreported in the EHR, and gender identity data were largely missing. Healthcare systems need strategies that support accurate collection of patients' self-reported ReAL and gender identity data to improve the future ability to identify and address healthcare disparities.

A Tale of Two Therapies- A Comparison of Armour Thyroid and Levothyroxine

Treatment of hypothyroidism is predominantly with levothyroxine due to its ability to generate stable T3 levels and its long half-life. Many patients report continued hypothyroid symptoms despite normal TSH values on levothyroxine and request to switch to desiccated animal thyroid extract. Desiccated thyroid extract is less used for fear of side effects and risks. There are only a handful of studies available comparing desiccated animal thyroid extract to levothyroxine. We conducted a retrospective study on 250 hypothyroid patients over the age of 18 who presented to our clinic from 2008-2018. We excluded patients who had a history of thyroid cancer and documented non-adherence. We analyzed 125 patients on levothyroxine (males=43, females=82) and 125 patients who were on levothyroxine but chose to switch to Armour Thyroid (males=7, females=118). We examined the following variables; when comparisons of proportions were made between the two groups, N-1 chi square test was used to determine significance.

1. Reason for change to Armour Thyroid from levothyroxine: Top reasons were fatigue (n=51/125, 40.8%), inability to lose weight (n=32/125, 25.6%), mental fog (n=8/125, 6.4%), hair loss (n=8/125, 6.4%) and desire for a natural product (n=7/125, 5.6%)

2. Percentage of patients complaining of fatigue/weight gain in euthyroid state: 16/125 (12.8%) of patients on Armour Thyroid and 29/125 (23.2%) of patients on levothyroxine had complaints of fatigue and weight gain with a normal TSH. This 10.4% difference was significant (p value=0.033, 95% CI 0.84% to 19.8%).

3. Presence of side effects: 24/125 (19.2%) patients on Armour Thyroid discontinued it before 6 months. The top reasons were no improvement of symptoms (n=9/24, 37.5%), palpitations (n=5/24, 20.8%), worsening anxiety (n=3/24, 12.5%), cost (n=2/24, 8.33%), and loss of appetite (n=2/24, 8.33%). 5/125 (4.00%) patients on levothyroxine chose to discontinue it before 6 months. The reasons included presence of palpitations (n=3/5, 60.0%), hair loss (n=1/5, 20.0%), and gluten intolerance (n=1/5, 20.0%). A total of 11/125 (8.8%) had adverse effects from Armour Thyroid while 4/125 (3.2%) of patients on levothyroxine had adverse effects to the medication. The difference of 5.6% leaned toward clinical significance and trended toward being statistically significant (p value=0.06, CI -0.4842% to 12.1677%).

Our research shows that patients generally feel better on Armour Thyroid compared to levothyroxine. Armour Thyroid is an effective medication to use for patients who remain symptomatic on levothyroxine and should be considered as a viable option in clinical practice. However, our study also indicated that patients may have more adverse effects on Armour Thyroid when compared to levothyroxine and further studies are needed comparing the two medications. Limitations of our study include the retrospective nature of the study and the sample size.