Context:The High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) sepsis project was a two-year multi-site project where Member health care delivery systems worked on improving sepsis care using a dissemination & implementation framework designed by HVHC. As part of the project evaluation, participating Members provided 5 data submissions over the project period. Members created data files using a uniform specification, but the data sources and methods used to create the data sets differed. Extensive data cleaning was necessary to get a data set usable for the evaluation analysis.Case Description:HVHC was the coordinating center for the project and received and cleaned all data submissions. Submissions received 3 sequentially more detailed levels of checking by HVHC. The most detailed level evaluated validity by comparing values within-Member over time and between Member. For a subset of episodes Member-submitted data were compared to matched Medicare claims data.Findings:Inconsistencies in data submissions, particularly for length-of-stay variables were common in early submissions and decreased with subsequent submissions. Multiple resubmissions were sometimes required to get clean data. Data checking also uncovered a systematic difference in the way Medicare and some members defined intensive care unit stay.Conclusions:Data checking is a critical for ensuring valid analytic results for projects using electronic health record data. It is important to budget sufficient resources for data checking. Interim data submissions and checks help find anomalies early. Data resubmissions should be checked as fixes can introduce new errors. Communicating with those responsible for creating the data set provides critical information.

Introduction:Health systems can be supported by collaborative networks focused on data sharing and comparative analytics to identify and rapidly disseminate promising care practices. Standardized data collection, quality assessment, and cleansing is a necessary process to facilitate meaningful analytics for operations, quality improvement, and research. We developed a framework for aligning data from health care delivery systems using the High Value Healthcare Collaborative central registry.Framework:The centralized data registry model allows for multiple layers of data quality assessment. Our framework uses an iterative approach, starting with clear specifications, maintaining ongoing dialogue with diverse stakeholders, and regular checkpoints to assess data conformance, completeness, and plausibility.Lessons Learned:We found that an iterative communication process is critical for a central registry to ensure: 1) clarity of data specifications, 2) appropriate data quality, and 3) thorough understanding of data source, purpose, and context. Engaging teams from all participating institutions and incorporating diverse stakeholders of clinicians, information technologists, data analysts, operations managers, and health services researchers in all decision making processes supports development of high quality datasets for comparative analytics across multiple institutions.Conclusion:A standard data specification and submission process alone does not guarantee aligned data for a collaborative registry. Implementing an iterative data quality improvement framework with extensive communication proved to be effective for aligning data from multiple institutions to support meaningful analytics.