A Comparison of Data Quality Assessment Checks in Six Data Sharing Networks. Issue 1 (12th June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Callahan, Tiffany J.; Bauck, Alan E.; Bertoch, David; Brown, Jeff; Khare, Ritu; Ryan, Patrick B.; Staab, Jenny; Zozus, Meredith N.; Kahn, Michael G.
• Is Part Of: EGEMS. Volume 5:Issue 1(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-06-12
• Subjects: Medical records -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Data processing -- Periodicals; Medical Records; Automatic Data Processing; Medical care -- Data processing; Medical records -- Data processing; Periodicals; Periodicals; 651.504261
• DOI: 10.5334/egems.223
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2327-9214

Abstract

Objective: To compare rule-based data quality (DQ) assessment approaches across multiple national clinical data sharing organizations. Methods: Six organizations with established data quality assessment (DQA) programs provided documentation or source code describing current DQ checks. DQ checks were mapped to the categories within the data verification context of the harmonized DQA terminology. To ensure all DQ checks were consistently mapped, conventions were developed and four iterations of mapping performed. Difficult-to-map DQ checks were discussed with research team members until consensus was achieved. Results: Participating organizations provided 11, 026 DQ checks, of which 99.97 percent were successfully mapped to a DQA category. Of the mapped DQ checks (N=11, 023), 214 (1.94 percent) mapped to multiple DQA categories. The majority of DQ checks mapped to Atemporal Plausibility (49.60 percent), Value Conformance (17.84 percent), and Atemporal Completeness (12.98 percent) categories. Discussion: Using the common DQA terminology, near-complete (99.97 percent) coverage across a wide range of DQA programs and specifications was reached. Comparing the distributions of mapped DQ checks revealed important differences between participating organizations. This variation may be related to the organization's stakeholder requirements, primary analytical focus, or maturity of their DQA program. Not within scope, mapping checks within the data validation context of the terminology may provide additional insights into DQA practice differences. Conclusion: A common DQA terminology provides a means to help organizations and researchers understand the coverage of their current DQA efforts as well as highlight potential areas for additional DQA development. Sharing DQ checks between organizations could help expand the scope of DQA across clinical data networks.