How Well Does Chart Abstraction Measure Quality?

A Prospective Comparison of Standardized Patients with the Medical Record

Published in: The American Journal of Medicine, v. 108, no. 8, June 1, 2000, p. 642-649

Posted on on January 01, 2000

by Jeffrey Luck, John Peabody, Timothy R. Dresselhaus, Martin L. Lee, Peter Glassman

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

PURPOSE: Despite widespread reliance on chart abstraction for quality measurement, concerns persist about its reliability and validity. The authors prospectively evaluated the validity of chart abstraction by directly comparing it with the gold standard of reports by standardized patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty randomly selected general internal medicine residents and attending faculty physicians at the primary care clinics of two Veterans Affairs Medical Centers blindly evaluated and treated actor-patients (standardized patients) who had one of four common diseases: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or low back pain. Charts from the visits were abstracted using explicit quality criteria; standardized patients completed a checklist containing the same criteria. For each physician, quality was measured for two different cases of the four conditions (a total of 160 physician-patient encounters). The authors compared chart abstraction with standardized-patient reports for four aspects of the encounter: taking the history, examining the patient, making the diagnosis, and prescribing appropriate treatment. The sensitivity and specificity of chart abstraction were calculated. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) chart abstraction score was 54% +/- 9%, substantially less than the mean score on the standardized-patient checklist of 68% +/- 9% (P <0. 001). This finding was similar for all four conditions and at both sites. False positives--chart-recorded necessary care actions not reported by the standardized patients--resulted in a specificity of only 81%. The overall sensitivity of chart abstraction for necessary care was only 70%. CONCLUSIONS: Chart abstraction underestimates the quality of care for common outpatient general medical conditions when compared with standardized-patient reports. The medical record is neither sensitive nor specific. Quality measurements derived from chart abstraction may have important shortcomings, particularly as the basis for drawing policy conclusions or making management decisions.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.