Abstract

BackgroundEthnicity recording within primary care computerised medical record (CMR) systems is suboptimal, exacerbated by tangled taxonomies within current coding systems.ObjectiveTo develop a method for extending ethnicity identification using routinely collected...

Highlights

  • Ethnicity is an important determinant of healthcare inequality worldwide

  • Tippu et al Ethnicity recording in primary care computerised medical record systems: an ontological approach 800. This mapping method substantially increases the prevalence of known ethnicity in CMR data and may aid future epidemiological research based on routine data

  • Mean valid ethnicity recording was 48.97% (n =1,008,667) across the sample population. Of those identified with a valid ethnicity recording, 96.14% (n = 969,740) were recorded to have a definite code. 3.71% (n = 37,443) and 0.15% (n = 1,487) had possible and probable codes, respectively

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ethnicity is an important determinant of healthcare inequality worldwide. Disease pattern and presentation,[1] alongside uptake and utilisation of healthcare services,[2] varies across ethnic groups.Ethnicity recording within primary care health records was introduced in 1991, followed by the introduction into Hospital Episode Statistics in England in 1995.3 Despite its prolonged inclusion time ethnicity recording within primary care data remains suboptimal.[4]. Disease pattern and presentation,[1] alongside uptake and utilisation of healthcare services,[2] varies across ethnic groups. Objective To develop a method for extending ethnicity identification using routinely collected data. Clinical codes were either directly mapped to ethnicity group or utilised as proxy markers (such as language spoken) from which ethnicity could be inferred. The overall categorisable ethnicity using QOF codes was 36.26% (95% confidence interval (CI): 36.20%–36.33%). This rose to 48.57% (CI:48.50%–48.64%) using the described ethnicity mapping process. The highest relative increase was in the ethnic group categorised as the other (0.04%; CI: 0.03%–0.04% to 0.92%; CI: 0.91%–0.93%)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.