Harandi AA, McPherson K, Lo Y, Gutiérrez R, Chao JY. A pragmatic methodology to extract anesthetic and physiological data from the electronic health record.
Paediatr Anaesth 2024;
34:318-323. [PMID:
38055618 PMCID:
PMC10922302 DOI:
10.1111/pan.14817]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2023] [Revised: 11/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/19/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Traditional manual methods of extracting anesthetic and physiological data from the electronic health record rely upon visual transcription by a human analyst that can be labor-intensive and prone to error. Technical complexity, relative inexperience in computer coding, and decreased access to data warehouses can deter investigators from obtaining valuable electronic health record data for research studies, especially in under-resourced settings. We therefore aimed to develop, pilot, and demonstrate the effectiveness and utility of a pragmatic data extraction methodology.
METHODS
Expired sevoflurane concentration data from the electronic health record transcribed by eye was compared to an intermediate preprocessing method in which the entire anesthetic flowsheet narrative report was selected, copy-pasted, and processed using only Microsoft Word and Excel software to generate a comma-delimited (.csv) file. A step-by-step presentation of this method is presented. Concordance rates, Pearson correlation coefficients, and scatterplots with lines of best fit were used to compare the two methods of data extraction.
RESULTS
A total of 1132 datapoints across eight subjects were analyzed, accounting for 18.9 h of anesthesia time. There was a high concordance rate of data extracted using the two methods (median concordance rate 100% range [96%, 100%]). The median time required to complete manual data extraction was significantly longer compared to the time required using the intermediate method (240 IQR [199, 482.5] seconds vs 92.5 IQR [69, 99] seconds, p = .01) and was linearly associated with the number of datapoints (rmanual = .97, p < .0001), whereas time required to complete data extraction using the intermediate approach was independent of the number of datapoints (rintermediate = -.02, p = .99).
CONCLUSIONS
We describe a pragmatic data extraction methodology that does not require additional software or coding skills intended to enhance the ease, speed, and accuracy of data collection that could assist in clinician investigator-initiated research and quality/process improvement projects.
Collapse