Validity of Administrative Claims and Electronic Health Registry Data From a Single Practice for Eye Health Surveillance

Abstract

ImportanceDiagnostic information from administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data may serve as an important resource for surveillance of vision and eye health, but the accuracy and validity of these sources are unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate the accuracy of diagnosis codes in administrative claims and EHRs compared to retrospective medical record review.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study compared the presence and prevalence of eye disorders based on diagnostic codes in EHR and claims records vs clinical medical record review at University of Washington–affiliated ophthalmology or optometry clinics from May 2018 to April 2020. Patients 16 years and older with an eye examination in the previous 2 years were included, oversampled for diagnosed major eye diseases and visual acuity loss.ExposuresPatients were assigned to vision and eye health condition categories based on diagnosis codes present in their billing claims history and EHR using the diagnostic case definitions of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) as well as clinical assessment based on retrospective medical record review.Main Outcome and MeasuresAccuracy was measured as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of claims and EHR-based diagnostic coding vs retrospective review of clinical assessments and treatment plans.ResultsAmong 669 participants (mean [range] age, 66.1 [16-99] years; 357 [53.4%] female), identification of diseases in billing claims and EHR data using VEHSS case definitions was accurate for diabetic retinopathy (claims AUC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; EHR AUC, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), glaucoma (claims AUC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; EHR AUC, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95), age-related macular degeneration (claims AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.92; EHR AUC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98), and cataracts (claims AUC, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86; EHR AUC, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93). However, several condition categories showed low validity with AUCs below 0.7, including diagnosed disorders of refraction and accommodation (claims AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.49-0.60; EHR AUC, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67), diagnosed blindness and low vision (claims AUC, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58; EHR AUC, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54-0.59), and orbital and external diseases (claims AUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.69; EHR AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.59-0.70).Conclusion and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of current and recent ophthalmology patients with high rates of eye disorders and vision loss, identification of major vision-threatening eye disorders based on diagnosis codes in claims and EHR records was accurate. However, vision loss, refractive error, and other broadly defined or lower-risk disorder categories were less accurately identified by diagnosis codes in claims and EHR data.

The Impact of Documentation Workflow on the Accuracy of the Coded Diagnoses in the Electronic Health Record

“…The accuracy of coded diagnoses in the EHR is of fundamental importance in Big Data research, 1 , 4 and there is a need to understand the factors that influence it. Studies of EHR data quality have typically assessed the usefulness of the data for specific use cases, such as disease surveillance, 5 and predictive models for specific outcomes. 6 Some studies have assessed the accuracy of coded data, 7 but as this often requires a manual review, 8 there are few studies assessing the concordance between the coded data and the clinical documentation or the factors that influence it, such the physician workflow and EHR design.…”

Error in Introduction

“…The Original Investigation titled “Validity of Administrative Claims and Electronic Health Registry Data From a Single Practice for Eye Health Surveillance,” published online May 4, 2023, was corrected to fix an error in the expenditure listed in the second sentence of the article in the Introduction; $139 billion was revised to $134 billion.…”