Display options
Share it on

Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Sep;31(9):1397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.014. Epub 2013 Jul 29.

Discordance between patient report and chart review of risk factors for antimicrobial resistance in ED patients.

The American journal of emergency medicine

Jeffrey M Caterino, Lauren Graham, Andrew King, Tyler Hoppes

Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].

PMID: 23906619 PMCID: PMC4065240 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.014

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to identify the level of agreement between patient self-report and chart review for presence of antimicrobial resistance (AR) risk factors in emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of adult ED patients from July 2010 to January 2011. All ED patients 18 years or older were eligible. Exclusion criteria included pregnant women, prisoners, altered mental status, non-English speakers, traumas, and patients unable to provide consent. Data were obtained by ED patient interview and review of the preceding 3 months of the medical record. We report the difference between patient self-report and chart review of identifying 1 or more AR risk factors using McNemar's χ(2). The test statistic was also calculated for individual risk factors and significance adjusted for multiple comparisons (P < .003). Agreement was calculated using κ with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk factor domains assessed included nursing home residence, recent health care utilization, current indwelling devices, and medical history.

RESULTS: Among 289 patients, 1 or more risk factors were reported by 68% (95% CI, 63%-74%) of patients and found in 59% (95% CI, 53%-65%) of charts, a difference of 9.7% (95% CI, 5.3%-14%) (P < .001; κ = 0.72). Patients were more likely to report recent antibiotic use (42% vs 29%; P < .001; κ = 0.52) and recent surgery (17% vs 11%; P < .001; κ = 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS: There is disagreement between ED patient self-report and medical record review for many AR risk factors. This could affect both clinical care and results of ED research studies relying on chart reviews. Patient self-report identifies a greater number of AR risk factors than chart review.

© 2013.

References

  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;57(10):1096-103 - PubMed
  2. J Manag Care Pharm. 2004 Jan-Feb;10(1):17-25 - PubMed
  3. Clin Infect Dis. 2007 Mar 1;44 Suppl 2:S27-72 - PubMed
  4. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Feb 15;171(4):388-416 - PubMed
  5. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Nov;17(11):2987-94 - PubMed
  6. Am J Emerg Med. 2000 Mar;18(2):143-6 - PubMed
  7. Chest. 2008 Nov;134(5):963-968 - PubMed
  8. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Nov;88(5):668-75 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Feb;56(2):148-54 - PubMed
  10. Crit Care Med. 2008 Jan;36(1):296-327 - PubMed
  11. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74 - PubMed
  12. Am J Cardiol. 2011 Feb 15;107(4):569-72 - PubMed
  13. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010 May;19(5):474-81 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):543-9 - PubMed
  15. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008 Apr;14 Suppl 3:15-21 - PubMed
  16. Am J Manag Care. 2007 Jun;13(6 Part 1):289-96 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;61(10):1073-9 - PubMed
  18. Med Care. 2006 Feb;44(2):132-40 - PubMed
  19. Br J Hosp Med. 1993 Mar 3-16;49(5):346-50 - PubMed
  20. Am J Epidemiol. 1994 Apr 15;139(8):813-8 - PubMed
  21. Clin Infect Dis. 1999 Oct;29(4):745-58 - PubMed
  22. J Hosp Infect. 2007 Apr;65(4):361-7 - PubMed
  23. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Jul;57(7):1219-25 - PubMed
  24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;60(6):634-42 - PubMed
  25. Chest. 1999 Feb;115(2):462-74 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support