A hybrid approach to record linkage using a combination of deterministic and probabilistic methodology.

OBJECTIVE: The disjointed healthcare system and the nonexistence of a universal patient identifier across systems necessitates accurate record linkage (RL). We aim to describe the implementation and evaluation of a hybrid record linkage method in a statewide surveillance system for congenital heart disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clear-text personally identifiable information on individuals in the Colorado Congenital Heart Disease surveillance system was obtained from 5 electronic health record and medical claims data sources. Two deterministic methods and 1 probabilistic RL method using first name, last name, social security number, date of birth, and house number were initially implemented independently and then sequentially in a hybrid approach to assess RL performance. RESULTS: 16 480 nonunique individuals with congenital heart disease were ascertained. Deterministic linkage methods, when performed independently, yielded 4505 linked pairs (consisting of 2 records linked together within or across data sources). Probabilistic RL, using 3 initial characters of last name and gender for blocking, yielded 6294 linked pairs when executed independently. Using a hybrid linkage routine resulted in 6451 linkages and an additional 18%-24% correct linked pairs as compared to the independent methods. A hybrid linkage routine resulted in higher recall and F-measure scores compared to probabilistic and deterministic methods performed independently. DISCUSSION: The hybrid approach resulted in increased linkage accuracy and identified pairs of linked record that would have otherwise been missed when using any independent linkage technique. CONCLUSION: When performing RL within and across disparate data sources, the hybrid RL routine outperformed independent deterministic and probabilistic methods.

A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data.

OBJECTIVE: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmonized to a comprehensive unified terminology with definitions and examples and organized into a conceptual framework to support a common approach to defining whether EHR data is 'fit' for specific uses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DQ publications, informatics and analytics experts, managers of established DQ programs, and operational manuals from several mature EHR-based research networks were reviewed to identify potential DQ terms and categories. Two face-to-face stakeholder meetings were used to vet an initial set of DQ terms and definitions that were grouped into an overall conceptual framework. Feedback received from data producers and users was used to construct a draft set of harmonized DQ terms and categories. Multiple rounds of iterative refinement resulted in a set of terms and organizing framework consisting of DQ categories, subcategories, terms, definitions, and examples. The harmonized terminology and logical framework's inclusiveness was evaluated against ten published DQ terminologies. RESULTS: Existing DQ terms were harmonized and organized into a framework by defining three DQ categories: (1) Conformance (2) Completeness and (3) Plausibility and two DQ assessment contexts: (1) Verification and (2) Validation. Conformance and Plausibility categories were further divided into subcategories. Each category and subcategory was defined with respect to whether the data may be verified with organizational data, or validated against an accepted gold standard, depending on proposed context and uses. The coverage of the harmonized DQ terminology was validated by successfully aligning to multiple published DQ terminologies. DISCUSSION: Existing DQ concepts, community input, and expert review informed the development of a distinct set of terms, organized into categories and subcategories. The resulting DQ terms successfully encompassed a wide range of disparate DQ terminologies. Operational definitions were developed to provide guidance for implementing DQ assessment procedures. The resulting structure is an inclusive DQ framework for standardizing DQ assessment and reporting. While our analysis focused on the DQ issues often found in EHR data, the new terminology may be applicable to a wide range of electronic health data such as administrative, research, and patient-reported data. CONCLUSION: A consistent, common DQ terminology, organized into a logical framework, is an initial step in enabling data owners and users, patients, and policy makers to evaluate and communicate data quality findings in a well-defined manner with a shared vocabulary. Future work will leverage the framework and terminology to develop reusable data quality assessment and reporting methods.