Search

Background: In dentistry, the use of electronic patient records for research is underexplored. The aim of this paper is to describe a case study process of obtaining research data (sociodemographic, clinical and workforce) from electronic primary care dental records, and outlining data cleaning and validation strategies. This study was undertaken at the University of Portsmouth Dental Academy (UPDA), which is a centre of education, training and provision of state funded services (National Health Services). UPDA's electronic patient management system is R4/Clinical +. This is a widely used system in general dental practices in the UK.Method: A two-phase process, involving first Pilot and second Main data extraction were undertaken. Using System Query Language (SQL), data extracts containing variables related to patients' demography, socio-economic status and dental care received were generated. A data cleaning and validation exercise followed, using a combination of techniques including Maletic and Marcus's (2000) general framework for data cleaning and Rahm and Haido's (2010) principles of data cleaning.Results: The findings of the case study support the use of a two-phase data extraction process. The data validation processes highlighted the need for both manual and analytical strategies when cleaning these data. Finally, the process demonstrated that electronic dental records can be validated and used for epidemiological and heath service research. The potential to generalise findings is great due to the large number of records. There are, however, limitations to the data which need to be considered, relating to quality (data input), database structure and interpretation of data codes.Conclusion: Electronic dental records are useful in health service research, epidemiological studies and skill mix research. Researchers should work closely with clinicians, managers and software developers to ensure that the data generated are accurate, valid and generalisable. Following data extraction the researchers need to adapt stringent validation and data cleaning strategies to guarantee that the extracted electronic data are accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is growing emphasis on the role of digital solutions in supporting chronic disease management. This has the potential to increase the burden patients experience in managing their health by offloading care from the health system to patients. This paper explores the effects of virtual visits on patient burden using an explicit framework measuring both the work patients do to care for their health and the challenges they experience that exacerbate burden.Methods: This mixed methods study evaluates a large pilot implementation of virtual visits (video, audio, and asynchronous messaging with providers) in primary care in Ontario, Canada. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling from patients using a virtual visit platform to complete a semi-structured interview or a survey including a free-text response. We conducted 17 interviews and reviewed 427 free text responses related to explore patients' perceived value and burden of these visits. We used qualitative analyses to map patients' feedback on their experience to the framework on patient burden.Main Findings: Virtual visits appear to reduce the work patients must do to manage their care by 1) improving access, convenience, and time needed for medical appointments, and 2) making it easier to access information and support for chronic disease management. Virtual visits also alleviate patients' perceived burden by improving continuity of care, experience of care, and providing some cost savings.Conclusions: Virtual visits reduced overall patient burden of treatment by decreasing the required patient effort of managing medical appointments and monitoring their health, and by minimizing challenges experienced when accessing care. For regions that want to improve patient experience of care, virtual visits are likely to be of benefit. There is need for further research on the generalizability of the findings herein, particularly for high-needs populations under-represented such as those of low socioeconomic status and those in rural and remote locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD is an extremely influential U.K. primary care dataset for epidemiological research having a number of published papers based on its data much bigger than any other U.K. primary care dataset. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) death data for England can be linked to GOLD at the patient level and are considered the gold standard on mortality. GOLD, which also holds death data, has been recently assessed against ONS linked dataset and the accuracy of its dates of death has been deemed sufficient for the majority of observational studies. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to manage the challenges existing when ONS mortality and GOLD datasets are linked, including linkage coverage period, linkage correctness likelihood, linkage regional limitations and data discrepancy.Objectives: Provide reconciling guidelines on how to make maximum and at the same time trustworthy use of mortality information coming from both GOLD and ONS linked datasets with the aim of improving the quality, reproducibility, transparency and comparison of clinical research.Method and Results: We have developed recommendations on how to manage mortality data coming from both GOLD and linked ONS, taking into account linkage coverage period, linkage correctness likelihood, linkage regional limitations and data discrepancies between these two datasets. We have also implemented these guidelines in an SQL algorithm for researchers to use.Conclusion: We have provided detailed guidelines on the reconciliation of mortality data between GOLD and ONS linked death datasets, taking into account both their strengths and limitations. The consistent application of these guidelines made practical by an SQL algorithm, has the potential to improve clinical research quality, reproducibility, transparency and comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]