Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study.

Fadahunsi, Kayode PhilipORCID logo; Wark, Petra AORCID logo; Mastellos, NikolaosORCID logo; Neves, Ana LuisaORCID logo; Gallagher, JosephORCID logo; Majeed, AzeemORCID logo; Webster, AndrewORCID logo; Smith, AnthonyORCID logo; Choo-Kang, BrianORCID logo; Leon, CatherineORCID logo; +19 more...Edwards, ChristopherORCID logo; O'Shea, ConorORCID logo; Heitz, ElizabethORCID logo; Kayode, Olamide ValentineORCID logo; Nash, MakebaORCID logo; Kowalski, MartinORCID logo; Jiwani, MateenORCID logo; O'Callaghan, Michael EdmundORCID logo; Zary, NabilORCID logo; Henderson, NicolaORCID logo; Chavannes, Niels HORCID logo; Čivljak, RokORCID logo; Olubiyi, Olubunmi AbiolaORCID logo; Mahapatra, PiyushORCID logo; Panday, Rishi NannanORCID logo; Oriji, Sunday OORCID logo; Fox, Tatiana ErlikhORCID logo; Faint, VictoriaORCID logo; and Car, JosipORCID logo (2022) Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study. Journal of medical Internet research, 24 (12). e41889-. ISSN 1439-4456 DOI: 10.2196/41889
Copy

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. OBJECTIVE: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. METHODS: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. RESULTS: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430.


picture_as_pdf
Fadahunsi-etal-2022-Assessment-of-Clinical-Information-Quality-in-Digital-Health.pdf
subject
Published Version
Available under Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0

View Download

Atom BibTeX OpenURL ContextObject in Span Multiline CSV OpenURL ContextObject Dublin Core Dublin Core MPEG-21 DIDL Data Cite XML EndNote HTML Citation JSON MARC (ASCII) MARC (ISO 2709) METS MODS RDF+N3 RDF+N-Triples RDF+XML RIOXX2 XML Reference Manager Refer Simple Metadata ASCII Citation EP3 XML
Export

Downloads