Abstract
Data extraction tools (DETs) are increasingly being used for research and audit of general practice, despite their limitations.Objective This study explores the accuracy of Pap smear rates obtained with a DET compared to that of the Pap smear rate obtained with a manual file audit. A widely available DET was used to establish the rate of Pap smears in a large multi-general practice (multi-GP) in regional New South Wales followed by a manual audit of patient files. The main outcome measure was identification of possible discrepancies between the rates established. The DET used significantly underestimated the level of cervical screening compared to the manual audit. In some instances, the patient file contained phone/specialist record of Pap smear conducted elsewhere, which accounted for the failure of the DET to detect some smears. Those patients who had Pap smears whose pathology codes differed between time intervals, i.e. from different pathology providers or from within the same provider but using a different code, were less likely to have had their most recent Pap smear detected by the DET (p < 0.001). Data obtained from DETs should be used with caution as they may not accurately reflect the rate of Pap smears from electronic medical records.How this fits in DETs are increasingly being used for research and audit of general practice. This study explores the accuracy of Pap smear rates obtained with a DET compared to that of the Pap smear rate obtained with a manual file audit The DET tested significantly underestimated the level of cervical screening compared to manual screening. Data obtained from DETs should be used with caution as they may not accurately reflect the rate of Pap smears from electronic medical records.
Highlights
With the development of computer systems in Australian general practice, the potential has come for increased access to primary healthcare information on a much larger scale[1] and the potential for evidence-based information to improve healthcare.[2]
This study explores the accuracy of Pap smear rates obtained with a Data extraction tools (DETs) compared to that of the Pap smear rate obtained with a manual file audit The DET tested significantly underestimated the level of cervical screening compared to manual screening
Data obtained from DETs should be used with caution as they may not accurately reflect the rate of Pap smears from electronic medical records
Summary
With the development of computer systems in Australian general practice, the potential has come for increased access to primary healthcare information on a much larger scale[1] and the potential for evidence-based information to improve healthcare.[2]. It has been recognised that data extraction tools (DETs) have limitations relating to data entry and incomplete data.[3] Current DETs do not work with all clinical software programs and the way in which the software architecture of clinical systems has been established does not lend itself to extraction of data.[1] In this study, the screening rate obtained via a DET was compared to the rate obtained using a practice audit of patient files for a large multi-general practice (multi-GP) practice in regional New South Wales. Method A widely available DET was used to establish the rate of Pap smears in a large multi-general practice (multi-GP) in regional New South Wales followed by a manual audit of patient files. Conclusion Data obtained from DETs should be used with caution as they may not accurately reflect the rate of Pap smears from electronic medical records
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
