ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2017
Using a stakeholder-engaged approach to develop and validate electronic clinical quality measures.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges to and Countermeasures for the Value Realization of Healthcare Data Elements in China.Health care science · 2025Article
- Meaningfulness, feasibility, and usability of quality-of-care measures for maternal and infant health: A structured mixed-methods review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Engaging Veterans, caregivers, and system stakeholders to improve VA home and community-based services.Health services research · 2022Article
- Development of four electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) for use in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) following elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021Article
- Assessing the validity of existing dental sealant quality measures.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the stakeholder-engaged processes used to develop, specify, and validate 2 oral health care electronic clinical quality measures. MATERIALS AND
methodsA broad range of stakeholders were engaged from conception through testing to develop measures and test feasibility, reliability, and validity following National Quality Forum guidance. We assessed data element feasibility through semistructured interviews with key stakeholders using a National Quality Forum-recommended scorecard. We created test datasets of synthetic patients to test measure implementation feasibility and reliability within and across electronic health record (EHR) systems. We validated implementation with automated reporting of EHR clinical data against manual record reviews, using the kappa statistic.
resultsA stakeholder workgroup was formed and guided all development and testing processes. All critical data elements passed feasibility testing. Four test datasets, representing 577 synthetic patients, were developed and implemented within EHR vendors' software, demonstrating measure implementation feasibility. Measure reliability and validity were established through implementation at clinical practice sites, with kappa statistic values in the "almost perfect" agreement range of 0.80-0.99 for all but 1 measure component, which demonstrated "substantial" agreement. The 2 validated measures were published in the United States Health Information Knowledgebase.
conclusionThe stakeholder-engaged processes used in this study facilitated a successful measure development and testing cycle. Engaging stakeholders early and throughout development and testing promotes early identification of and attention to potential threats to feasibility, reliability, and validity, thereby averting significant resource investments that are unlikely to be fruitful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.