5 reasons data inaccuracies occur in EMRs

Studies have shown in recent years that the quality of data in many electronic medical records is often not very good. According to Peter Witonsky, president and chief sales officer at iSirona, this is largely due to simple inaccuracies that occur more often than we think.

"A lot of these fall into the same category, in my mind, but it's different ways of getting to that category," said Witonsky. "That latency of data is terrible. We have customers, prior to us, with eight to 10 hours in latency of data, and that's not uncommon. It's not the end of the world, but there are tons and tons of examples of what latency of data will do to decision making on the other side."

Witonsky highlights five reasons why data inaccuracies occur in EMRs. 

1. Simple miskeying. Although it may be easy and "quite common," said Witonsky, the main way data inaccuracies tend to occur is because of simple miskeying. "If you look at any nurse of any floor, there's about 1,000 or over 1,000 data elements a shift that person is responsible for," he said. "So if you're an ICU nurse, and you're taking vitals and other critical information every 15 minutes, or if you're a low acuity nurse and you have four patients to be responsible for, it seems to average out just north of 1,000 data elements." And to expect a nurse to key in those elements with 100 percent accuracy isn't a realistic goal, Witonsky said. "The idea any person [can do that] is ludicrous," he said.  

[See also: EMR implementation requires right planning.]

2. Miscommunication from the patient. Bad information or miscommunication from the patient is another all-too-common way these inaccuracies can occur, said Witonsky. And this can include the patient not telling which drugs they're on, not knowing the name of the drug or the dosage or even the patient lying about his or her weight. "So it's sort of a garbage in, garbage out theory," said Witonsky. "If you don't tell me that you're allergic [to a drug] and I give you Penicillin and it's a bad result, again, that's bad data in the EMR." It's for that reason, he pointed out, that most of today's EMRs have allergies highlighted at the top of every patient screen.

3. Wrong entry or lack of entering device data. Looking back to simple miskeying, said Witonsky, 1,000 data elements, over time, is "an awful lot of work," he said. "So you have something called smoothing, [which is] a long practice for smoothing data where a nurse of physician is expecting to see normal [results], and they put in normal regardless of what the device is telling you." These generic readings tend to bring out inconsistencies in data, he continued, which wouldn't occur if the person inputting data took the actual information from the device. "That's not intended to be a knock," he said. "That's intended to say, in performing the hardest job on the planet, if they knew [a patient] was healthy, they leave all the vitals on the machine and may choose to put [the patient] in as a normal patient, as opposed to the exact answers."

[See also: Data center projects require extraordinary planning, technical expertise.]

Previous
1

Showing 2 Comments

pjcasey75 say: Baseline Comparisons Needed

All of these common sources of error are big bright targets for quality improvement. But without a baseline comparison of the processes and systems which the EMR replaced, we don't know if we've gone forward or back in efforts to reduce errors and improve outcomes.

The tendency among readers is naturally to respond with a good deal of concern over the level of errors present in EMR data. And I am one of those concerned. Too often the assumption is that if it's computerized, it's automatically accurate. But we've all dealt with computerized billing haven't we?

Yet the previous method(s) of charting may have been more fraught with error than the EMR - or maybe not! I suspect (no study to back me here) that paper charting may do better in some respects (Timeliness of charting?...Ease of use?) and worse in others (Less information captured?...No decision support?...No allergy checking?..). So we need studies that not only uncover the problems with EMRs and the problems with paper charts, but specific studies that evaluate empirically (enough of the opinion polls - we need data) the change from one to the other.

Until then, your article certainly highlights many areas which need scrutiny in the implementation and use of EMRs. And I hope you keep it coming.

Ann Farrell say: Errors in vital signs

Peter -
Are you suggesting clinicians in many organizations you work with enter "normal" in documenting vital signs and not specific values? Or that this is best practice with some patients? Thanks for clarifying.

In past, you noted MDI data not validated by RNs are being used by your client(s) in research. Can you provide info on how they are identifying and discarding outliers and artifact data normally ignored by RNs and not charted in EHR when they are not predictable or generalized, nor able to be assessed for "context" after the fact.

Two (of dozens) use cases occuring continually are loose monitor leads with diaphoretic patients causing false low O2 sat readings and central IV lines turned off intermittently for med admin that reflect CVP of 0 for many minutes. Nurses at the bedside can evaluate the patient and not rotely chart, but if these data are included in decision support or research, won't this result in many more false alarms and skew research results? Thanks for all insight.

As industry thought leader from major vendor hope you can help educate the market on this given huge cost and quality implications.