front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |32 |33 |34 |35 |36 |37 |38 |39 |40 |41 |42 |43 |44 |45 |46 |47 |48 |49 |50 |review |
Most of the practices in the study community didn’t
even have a computer, let a lone an EMR.
Therefore, achart audit was conducted as part of clinical
information systems. It was
used to establish benchmarks of care in the community, and also as a
comparison to out clinical trial population, so that we were able to
tell if the results we found were generalizable to the community.
As part of the chart audit, everyone 18 years or
older with a diabetes diagnosis during or prior to calendar year
1999 had their chart audited.
Diagnoses were confirmed by:
READ SLIDE
For the repeat chart review, a 28% random sample of
the original 762 were audited at 12 month follow-up to see if
changes occurred in practice patterns and clinical outcomes over the
course of the study
219 charts provided sufficient power to detect
differences in practice patterns and clinical outcomes from baseline
to 12-month f/u if they truly existed.
Patients of designated physicians
The study’s PI trained two chart reviewers.
Training was performed using a standard chart review protocol
and consisted of both the trainer and trainee reviewing the same
charts over a three day period (~20). After each chart was reviewed
by both, discrepancies were noted and the chart was reviewed to
adjudicate the discrepancies.
If greater than 5% of responses were discrepant, chart audit
procedures were reviewed.
|