Enhancing Clinical Librarian Work Processes and Communicating Service Impact with REDCap and Data Visualization

Daniels, Kate; Lawson, Emily

doi:10.1080/02763869.2019.1588051

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, routine verification checks to reduce inconsistencies, range, and logic discrepancies and eliminate nonsense values, unnecessary repetitions, and inconsistent or egregious dates were implemented throughout the study. 8 Prior to finalising the database, 30 team members across 9 sites were identified and assigned to 1 of the 3 roles: data extraction, data entry, or both. Data extractors were responsible for extracting data from the local electronic medical record used in completing the case report forms; data entry personnel were only permitted to transfer data from completed case report forms to the REDCap database.…”

Section: Data Collection Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data quality methods through remote source data verification auditing: results from the Congenital Cardiac Research Collaborative

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Multicentre research databases can provide insights into healthcare processes to improve outcomes and make practice recommendations for novel approaches. Effective audits can establish a framework for reporting research efforts, ensuring accurate reporting, and spearheading quality improvement. Although a variety of data auditing models and standards exist, barriers to effective auditing including costs, regulatory requirements, travel, and design complexity must be considered. Materials and methods: The Congenital Cardiac Research Collaborative conducted a virtual data training initiative and remote source data verification audit on a retrospective multicentre dataset. CCRC investigators across nine institutions were trained to extract and enter data into a robust dataset on patients with tetralogy of Fallot who required neonatal intervention. Centres provided de-identified source files for a randomised 10% patient sample audit. Key auditing variables, discrepancy types, and severity levels were analysed across two study groups, primary repair and staged repair. Results: Of the total 572 study patients, data from 58 patients (31 staged repairs and 27 primary repairs) were source data verified. Amongst the 1790 variables audited, 45 discrepancies were discovered, resulting in an overall accuracy rate of 97.5%. High accuracy rates were consistent across all CCRC institutions ranging from 94.6% to 99.4% and were reported for both minor (1.5%) and major discrepancies type classifications (1.1%). Conclusion: Findings indicate that implementing a virtual multicentre training initiative and remote source data verification audit can identify data quality concerns and produce a reliable, high-quality dataset. Remote auditing capacity is especially important during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Data Collection Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%