Browsing by Subject "Forms and Records Control"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access Can this patient read and understand written health information?(JAMA, 2010-07) Powers, Benjamin J; Trinh, Jane V; Bosworth, Hayden BContext
Patients with limited literacy are at higher risk for poor health outcomes; however, physicians' perceptions are inaccurate for identifying these patients.Objective
To systematically review the accuracy of brief instruments for identifying patients with limited literacy.Data sources
Search of the English-language literature from 1969 through February 2010 using PubMed, Psychinfo, and bibliographies of selected manuscripts for articles on health literacy, numeracy, reading ability, and reading skill.Study selection
Prospective studies including adult patients 18 years or older that evaluated a brief instrument for identifying limited literacy in a health care setting compared with an accepted literacy reference standard.Data extraction
Studies were evaluated independently by 2 reviewers who each abstracted information and assigned an overall quality rating. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer.Data synthesis
Ten studies using 6 different instruments met inclusion criteria. Among multi-item measures, the Newest Vital Sign (English) performed moderately well for identifying limited literacy based on 3 studies. Among the single-item questions, asking about a patient's use of a surrogate reader, confidence filling out medical forms, and self-rated reading ability performed moderately well in identifying patients with inadequate or marginal literacy. Asking a patient, "How confident are you in filling out medical forms by yourself?" is associated with a summary likelihood ratio (LR) for limited literacy of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-6.4) for an answer of "a little confident" or "not at all confident"; a summary LR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.3) for "somewhat confident"; and a summary LR of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.24-0.82) for "quite a bit" or "extremely confident."Conclusion
Several single-item questions, including use of a surrogate reader and confidence with medical forms, were moderately effective for quickly identifying patients with limited literacy.Item Open Access Validation of ICDPIC software injury severity scores using a large regional trauma registry.(Inj Prev, 2015-10) Greene, Nathaniel H; Kernic, Mary A; Vavilala, Monica S; Rivara, Frederick PBACKGROUND: Administrative or quality improvement registries may or may not contain the elements needed for investigations by trauma researchers. International Classification of Diseases Program for Injury Categorisation (ICDPIC), a statistical program available through Stata, is a powerful tool that can extract injury severity scores from ICD-9-CM codes. We conducted a validation study for use of the ICDPIC in trauma research. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort validation study of 40,418 patients with injury using a large regional trauma registry. ICDPIC-generated AIS scores for each body region were compared with trauma registry AIS scores (gold standard) in adult and paediatric populations. A separate analysis was conducted among patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing the ICDPIC tool with ICD-9-CM embedded severity codes. Performance in characterising overall injury severity, by the ISS, was also assessed. RESULTS: The ICDPIC tool generated substantial correlations in thoracic and abdominal trauma (weighted κ 0.87-0.92), and in head and neck trauma (weighted κ 0.76-0.83). The ICDPIC tool captured TBI severity better than ICD-9-CM code embedded severity and offered the advantage of generating a severity value for every patient (rather than having missing data). Its ability to produce an accurate severity score was consistent within each body region as well as overall. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDPIC tool performs well in classifying injury severity and is superior to ICD-9-CM embedded severity for TBI. Use of ICDPIC demonstrates substantial efficiency and may be a preferred tool in determining injury severity for large trauma datasets, provided researchers understand its limitations and take caution when examining smaller trauma datasets.