Search

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play an indispensable role in providing comprehensive care and referring patients for specialty care and other medical services. As the COVID-19 outbreak disrupts patient access to care, understanding the quality of primary care is critical at this unprecedented moment to support patients with complex medical needs in the primary care setting and inform policymakers to redesign our primary care system. The traditional way of collecting information from patient surveys is time-consuming and costly, and novel data collection and analysis methods are needed. In this review paper, we describe the existing algorithms and metrics that use the real-world data to qualify and quantify primary care, including the identification of an individual's likely PCP (identification of plurality provider and major provider), assessment of process quality (for example, appropriate-care-model composite measures), and continuity and regularity of care index (including the interval index, variance index and relative variance index), and highlight the strength and limitation of real world data from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data in determining the quality of PCP care. The EHR audits facilitate assessing the quality of the workflow process and clinical appropriateness of primary care practices. With extensive and diverse records, administrative claims data can provide reliable information as it assesses primary care quality through coded information from different providers or networks. The use of EHRs and administrative claims data may be a cost-effective analytic strategy for evaluating the quality of primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnoses entered by general practitioners into electronic medical records have great potential for research and practice, but unfortunately, diagnoses are often in uncoded format, making them of little use. Natural language processing (NLP) could assist in coding free-text diagnoses, but NLP models require local training data to unlock their potential. The aim of this study was to develop a framework of research-relevant diagnostic codes, to test the framework using free-text diagnoses from a Swiss primary care database and to generate training data for NLP modelling. Methods: The framework of diagnostic codes was developed based on input from local stakeholders and consideration of epidemiological data. After pre-testing, the framework contained 105 diagnostic codes, which were then applied by two raters who independently coded randomly drawn lines of free text (LoFT) from diagnosis lists extracted from the electronic medical records of 3000 patients of 27 general practitioners. Coding frequency and mean occurrence rates (n and %) and inter-rater reliability (IRR) of coding were calculated using Cohen's kappa (Κ). Results: The sample consisted of 26,980 LoFT and in 56.3% no code could be assigned because it was not a specific diagnosis. The most common diagnostic codes were, 'dorsopathies' (3.9%, a code covering all types of back problems, including non-specific lower back pain, scoliosis, and others) and 'other diseases of the circulatory system' (3.1%). Raters were in almost perfect agreement (Κ ≥ 0.81) for 69 of the 105 diagnostic codes, and 28 codes showed a substantial agreement (K between 0.61 and 0.80). Both high coding frequency and almost perfect agreement were found in 37 codes, including codes that are particularly difficult to identify from components of the electronic medical record, such as musculoskeletal conditions, cancer or tobacco use. Conclusion: The coding framework was characterised by a subset of very frequent and highly reliable diagnostic codes, which will be the most valuable targets for training NLP models for automated disease classification based on free-text diagnoses from Swiss general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]