Factors Influencing Data Quality in Electronic Health Record Systems in 50 Health Facilities in Rwanda and the Role of Clinical Alerts: Cross-Sectional Observational Study
Hamish S F Fraser,Michael Mugisha,Ian Bacher,Joseph Lune Ngenzi,Christopher Seebregts,Aline Umubyeyi,Jeanine Condo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/49127
2024-07-03
Abstract:Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) play an increasingly important role in delivering HIV care in low- and middle-income countries. The data collected are used for direct clinical care, quality improvement, program monitoring, public health interventions, and research. Despite widespread EHR use for HIV care in African countries, challenges remain, especially in collecting high-quality data. Objective: We aimed to assess data completeness, accuracy, and timeliness compared to paper-based records, and factors influencing data quality in a large-scale EHR deployment in Rwanda. Methods: We randomly selected 50 health facilities (HFs) using OpenMRS, an EHR system that supports HIV care in Rwanda, and performed a data quality evaluation. All HFs were part of a larger randomized controlled trial, with 25 HFs receiving an enhanced EHR with clinical decision support systems. Trained data collectors visited the 50 HFs to collect 28 variables from the paper charts and the EHR system using the Open Data Kit app. We measured data completeness, timeliness, and the degree of matching of the data in paper and EHR records, and calculated concordance scores. Factors potentially affecting data quality were drawn from a previous survey of users in the 50 HFs. Results: We randomly selected 3467 patient records, reviewing both paper and EHR copies (194,152 total data items). Data completeness was >85% threshold for all data elements except viral load (VL) results, second-line, and third-line drug regimens. Matching scores for data values were close to or >85% threshold, except for dates, particularly for drug pickups and VL. The mean data concordance was 10.2 (SD 1.28) for 15 (68%) variables. HF and user factors (eg, years of EHR use, technology experience, EHR availability and uptime, and intervention status) were tested for correlation with data quality measures. EHR system availability and uptime was positively correlated with concordance, whereas users' experience with technology was negatively correlated with concordance. The alerts for missing VL results implemented at 11 intervention HFs showed clear evidence of improving timeliness and completeness of initially low matching of VL results in the EHRs and paper records (11.9%-26.7%; P<.001). Similar effects were seen on the completeness of the recording of medication pickups (18.7%-32.6%; P<.001). Conclusions: The EHR records in the 50 HFs generally had high levels of completeness except for VL results. Matching results were close to or >85% threshold for nondate variables. Higher EHR stability and uptime, and alerts for entering VL both strongly improved data quality. Most data were considered fit for purpose, but more regular data quality assessments, training, and technical improvements in EHR forms, data reports, and alerts are recommended. The application of quality improvement techniques described in this study should benefit a wide range of HFs and data uses for clinical care, public health, and disease surveillance.