Validity of Administrative Claims and Electronic Health Registry Data From a Single Practice for Eye Health Surveillance

作者：John S. Wittenborn, Aaron Lee, Elizabeth A. Lundeen, Phoebe A. Lamuda, JINAN B. SAADDINE, Grace L. Su, Randy Y. Lu, Aashka Damani, Jonathan S. Zawadzki, Colin P. Froines, Jolie Z. Shen, Timothy-Paul H. Kung, Ryan T. Yanagihara, Morgan Maring, Melissa M. Takahashi, Marian S. Blazes, David B. Rein · 发表于：JAMA Ophthalmology · 年份：2023 · DOI：10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.1263 · 被引用次数：17 · 研究领域：Retinal Imaging and Analysis、Glaucoma and retinal disorders、Medical Coding and Health Information

Importance: Diagnostic information from administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data may serve as an important resource for surveillance of vision and eye health, but the accuracy and validity of these sources are unknown. Objective: To estimate the accuracy of diagnosis codes in administrative claims and EHRs compared to retrospective medical record review. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compared the presence and prevalence of eye disorders based on diagnostic codes in EHR and claims records vs clinical medical record review at University of Washington-affiliated ophthalmology or optometry clinics from May 2018 to April 2020. Patients 16 years and older with an eye examination in the previous 2 years were included, oversampled for diagnosed major eye diseases and visual acuity loss. Exposures: Patients were assigned to vision and eye health condition categories based on diagnosis codes present in their billing claims history and EHR using the diagnostic case definitions of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) as well as clinical assessment based on retrospective medical record review. Main Outcome and Measures: Accuracy was measured as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of claims and EHR-based diagnostic coding vs retrospective review of clinical assessments and treatment plans. Results: Among 669 participants (mean [range] age, 66.1 [16-99...