Assessing the completeness of coded and narrative data from the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset using injuries sustained during fitness activities as a case study.

Shannon E Gray,Caroline F Finch

doi:10.1186/s12873-016-0091-4

Shannon E Gray, Caroline F Finch

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-016-0091-4

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundInjury surveillance systems support the ongoing systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health information vital to the prevention, planning and evaluation of injury prevention strategies. One key measure of the success of such systems is their reliability. Data completeness is a major component of system reliability, and is an indicator of a system’s data quality. The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset (VEMD) is a state-wide record of injury presentations to emergency departments in Victoria, Australia. For each case, it provides information on the injury cause, place of occurrence, activity at time of injury, body region affected and nature of injury, as well as a free-text narrative of the injury event. The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of data in the VEMD using injuries sustained in fitness facilities as a case study.MethodsAnalysis of VEMD coded parent injury variables (nature of injury, injured body region, cause of injury, place where injury occurred, activity at time of injury) and detailed narratives were reviewed for completeness over the ten-year period July 2003 to June 2012, inclusive. Narratives were text analysed manually to determine which items of injury information they contained and compared to the parent injury variables.ResultsThere were 2936 identified cases related to injuries sustained during fitness activities. Two percent of cases had all coded injury variables unspecified. Overall, 95.8 % of narratives had at least one piece of injury information missing. The nature of injury and body region variables were coded in 92.6 and 96.6 % of cases, yet were only mentioned in 27.1 and 75.4 % of narratives, respectively. The cause variable was allocated a specified code in 47.7 % of cases and was mentioned in 45.9 % of narratives. The cause was missing in both in 42.8 % of cases. In approximately half of all cases, the activity and place were specified in both the coded injury variable and narrative; they were missing in both in 7.4 and 13.6 % of cases, respectively.ConclusionsThe reliability of the VEMD as an injury surveillance system, varied depending on the injury variable being examined.

Highlights

Injury surveillance systems support the ongoing systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health information vital to the prevention, planning and evaluation of injury prevention strategies
In approximately 2 % of cases, all parent injury variables were uninformative, meaning that to uncover any information about the injury, the narrative needed to be relied upon solely. Of those cases with all parent injury variables unspecified, only one of these had a narrative with complete information
Our results show that there were some major differences and inconsistencies in what had been written in the narrative, and what was coded in the parent injury variables for body region

Summary

Introduction

Injury surveillance systems support the ongoing systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health information vital to the prevention, planning and evaluation of injury prevention strategies. Injury surveillance systems support the ongoing and systematic collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of health information [1, 2] These systems are usually established to provide government and international agencies with data to inform their funding decisions and oversight of health service delivery systems. They are useful for health care professionals, researchers and the general public because they can provide information on the burden of injuries and the incidence and characteristics of specific injury types [3] Data collected through such systems can be used to: (i) identify populations at risk of injury; (ii) identify opportunities for intervention, development and implementation; and (iii) evaluate and monitor intervention programs. The severity and types of injuries that occur, and the part of the body most commonly injured, are useful pieces of information needed to inform the development of injury prevention strategies [4]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion