Use of SNOMED CT® and LOINC® to standardize terminology for primary care asthma electronic health records.

OBJECTIVES: The burden of asthma ranks among the highest for chronic diseases. Interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) can improve the management of chronic diseases such as asthma by facilitating sharing of data between health care settings along the continuum of care. Terminology such as SNOMED CT® (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms) and LOINC® (Logistical Observation Identifier Names and Codes) are prerequisites for interoperability of EHRs. We sought to determine the extent to which data elements in a validated asthma care map (ACM) are congruent with these terminologies. METHODS: A certified asthma educator entered all 169 elements in the ACM into the SNOMED CT® browser. Matched elements were assigned a concept name, an identification number, and classified into a hierarchy. LOINC® terminology was reviewed for asthma-related pulmonary function tests (PFTs). RESULTS: Forty-two percent of the ACM elements were complete matches to existing SNOMED CT® concepts, 24% partial matches, and 34% unmatched. Specific asthma control parameters were either complete (n = 3) or partial (n = 4) matches, but overall "asthma control" was unmatched. There were 92% complete or partial matches for PFT elements to SNOMED CT® and 83% to LOINC®. Conclusions: The majority of ACM elements are congruent with standardized terminology, enabling EHR interoperability. Future requests for new concepts in SNOMED CT® and LOINC® should be pursued for asthma control parameters paramount to evidence-based practice.

Assessing the burden of childhood asthma: validation of electronic versions of the Mini Pediatric and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaires.

PURPOSE: To validate electronic versions of the Mini Pediatric and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaires (MiniPAQLQ and PACQLQ, respectively), determine completion times and correlate QOL of children and caregivers. METHODS: A total of 63 children and 64 caregivers completed the paper and electronic MiniPAQLQ or PACQLQ. Agreement between versions of each questionnaire was summarized by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The correlation between MiniPAQLQ and PACQLQ scores from child-caregiver pairs was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: There was no significant difference (mean difference = 0.1, 95% CI -0.1, 0.2) in MiniPAQLQ Overall Scores between paper (5.9 ± 1.0, mean ± SD) and electronic (5.8 ± 1.0) versions, or any of the domains. ICCs ranged from 0.89 (Overall) to 0.86 (Emotional Function). Overall PACQLQ scores for both versions were comparable (5.9 ± 0.9 and 5.8 ± 1.0; mean difference = 0.0; 95% CI -0.1, 0.2). ICCs ranged from 0.81 (Activity Limitation) to 0.88 (Emotional Function). The electronic PACQLQ took 26 s longer (95% CI 11, 41; p < 0.001). Few participants (3-11%) preferred the paper format. MiniPAQLQ and PACQLQ scores were significantly correlated (all p < 0.05) for Overall (r paper = 0.33, r electronic = 0.27) and Emotional Function domains (r paper = 0.34, r electronic = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: These electronic QOL questionnaires are valid, and asthma-related QOL of children and caregivers is related.

The development and test re-test reliability of a work-related asthma screening questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: Work-related asthma (WRA) is under-recognized and delays in recognition contribute to long-term morbidity. The objective of the project was to develop a WRA screening questionnaire for use by primary care providers in the assessment of individuals with asthma, and to evaluate the respondent burden, test re-test reliability and face validity of the questionnaire. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken and an expert advisory committee was convened. A questionnaire was drafted and assessed for feasibility of use and content validity. The study enrolled patients with asthma attending outpatient clinics and an asthma education center. Participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire on two occasions, and comment on the content (face validity) and ease of completion (respondent burden). Ethics approval was obtained from an institutional review board. RESULTS: A 14-item self-administered screening questionnaire was created. Thirty-nine participants were recruited, and 26 participants completed a second administration of the questionnaire. The items on the relation of asthma symptoms to work demonstrated substantial agreement between testings. The workplace exposures items were found to have good reproducibility. The majority of participants denied that items were repetitive, not useful or difficult to understand. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a WRA screening questionnaire designed to aid primary care providers in the recognition of possible WRA. The tool exhibited content and face validity, good test re-test reliability and low respondent burden. Participant feedback is being considered in revisions of the questionnaire.

Development and implementation of an electronic asthma record for primary care: integrating guidelines into practice.

RATIONALE: Evidence-based practice may be enhanced by integrating knowledge translation tools into electronic medical records (EMRs). We examined the feasibility of incorporating an evidence-based asthma care map (ACM) into Primary Care (PC) EMRs, and reporting on performance indicators. METHODS: Clinicians and information technology experts selected 69 clinical and administrative variables from the ACM template. Four Ontario PC sites using EMRs were recruited to the study. Certified Asthma Educators used the electronic ACM for patient assessment and management. De-identified data from consecutive asthma patients were automatically transmitted to a secure central server for analysis. RESULTS: Of the four sites recruited, two sites using "stand-alone" EMR systems were able to incorporate the selected ACM variables into an electronic format and participate in the pilot. Data were received on 161 visits by 130 patients aged 36.5 ± 26.9 (mean ± SD) (range 2-93) years. Ninety-four percent (65/69) of the selected ACM variables could be analyzed. Reporting capabilities included: individual patient, individual site and aggregate reports. Reports illustrated the ability to measure performance (e.g. number of patients in control, proportion of asthma diagnoses confirmed by an objective measure of lung function), benchmark and use EMR data for disease surveillance (e.g. number of smokers and the individuals with suspected work-related asthma). CONCLUSIONS: Integration of this evidence-based ACM into different EMRs was successful and permitted patient outcomes monitoring. Standardized data definitions and terminology are essential in order for EMR data to be used for performance measurement, benchmarking and disease surveillance.

Comparison of asthma control criteria: importance of spirometry.

AIMS: To compare the measurements of asthma control using Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Asthma Management Consensus Summary and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines composite indices with and without spirometry. METHODS: Asthma control parameters were extracted from electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients ≥6 years old at two primary care sites. Asthma control ratings calculated according to CTS and GINA criteria were compared. RESULTS: Data were available from 113 visits by 93 patients, aged 6-85 years (38.7 ± 24.8; mean ± SD). The proportion of visits at which individuals' asthma was completely controlled was 22.1% for CTS symptoms only and 9.7% for CTS with spirometry (p < .01); and 17.7% versus 14.1% for GINA symptoms only versus symptoms with spirometry (p = .125). CONCLUSIONS: Asthma control ratings using GINA and CTS criteria are discordant in more than half of the patients deemed "in control" by at least one scale. Differences in the spirometry criterion threshold are primarily responsible for this discordance. Failure to include spirometry as part of the control index consistently overestimates asthma control and may underestimate future risk of exacerbations.

Asthma electronic medical records in primary care: an integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Quality management, evaluation, and surveillance of asthma may be enhanced by access to and utilization of an asthma electronic medical record (EMR) in primary care. PURPOSE: To describe the current status, support tools, and utility of asthma EMRs in primary care. METHODS: An integrative review of the literature published between 1996 and 2008 was completed using Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Key search terms included asthma, medical records, computerized, primary health care, primary care, family physician, family practice, chronic disease, COPD, neoplasm, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. Articles related to concepts, systems in development, and sources such as acute care and pharmacy EMRs were excluded. Each article was reviewed by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 309 articles identified, 76 met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two percent were specific to asthma, 78% pertained to other chronic diseases and/or the overall status of an EMR in primary care. The literature varied in methodology, topics of discussion and value of data. Articles describing an asthma EMR most often reported on decision support tools (n = 3) and/or utility (n = 14), specifically the ability to predict mortality and assess severity and timeliness of diagnosis. A primary care EMR containing a validated asthma minimum data set was not found. Three themes emerged from the review: status (description of users, functionalities and adoption issues), tools (decision support tools to enhance knowledge uptake), and utility (data quality, extraction and outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of asthma elements in EMRs in primary care, with the exception of discussion of decision support tools and utility. Integration of a more robust asthma EMR in primary care, including a minimum data set, standardized terminology, and validated indicators, may further enhance care and enable outcomes monitoring.