What Is the Concordance Between the Medical Record and Patient Self-Report as Data Sources for Ambulatory Care?

Published in: Medical Care, v. 44, no. 2, Feb. 2006, p. 132-140

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2006

by Diana M. Tisnado, John L. Adams, Honghu H. Liu, Cheryl L. Damberg, Wen-Pin Chen, Fang Ashlee Hu, David Carlisle, Carol Mangione, Katherine L. Kahn

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.lww-medicalcare.com

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

BACKGROUND: The validity of quality of care assessments relies upon data quality, yet little is known about the relative completeness and validity of data sources for evaluating the quality of care. OBJECTIVES: The authors evaluated concordance between ambulatory medical record and patient survey data. Levels of concordance, variations by type of item, sources of disagreement between data sources, and implications for quality of care assessment efforts are discussed. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: This was an observational study that included 1270 patients sampled from 39 West Coast medical organizations with at least 1 of the following: diabetes, ischemic heart disease, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or low back pain. MEASURES: Items from both data sources were grouped into 4 conceptual domains: diagnosis, clinical services delivered, counseling and referral, and medication use. We present total agreement, kappa, sensitivity, and specificity at the item and domain-levels and for all items combined. RESULTS: The authors found good concordance between survey and medical records overall, but there was substantial variation within and across domains. The worst concordance was in the counseling and referrals domain, the best in the medication use domain. Patients were able to report with good sensitivity on memorable items. CONCLUSIONS: Quality ratings are likely to vary in differing directions, depending on the data source used. The most appropriate data source for analyses of components of and overall quality of care must be considered in light of study objectives and resources. The authors recommend data collection from multiple sources to most accurately portray the patient and provider experience of medical care.

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 www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

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.