Reliability and Validity of Judgments Concerning Adverse Events Suffered by Hospitalized Patients

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
To evaluate a process for identifying adverse events through review of medical records, multiple review of 360 medical records from two teaching hospitals were performed. The data from these multiple reviews provided information about the validity and reliability of our two-phase review process. In particular, it was found that the initial phase, involving review of the medical records by medical-record-room administrators using explicit criteria, was valid with a sensitivity of 84% and negative predictive value of 92%. Results also showed that the second phase, involving judgements by physicians guided by an adverse event analysis form, was reliable (Spearman Brown Rm = 0.78, m = 2) and demonstrated construct validity when compared with a review by a set of senior physicians employing a different method of review (Kappa = 0.57). In addition, it was found that these cases classified as difficult to judge from causation were judge less reliable (Rm = 0.48, for difficult case, Rm = 0.65, for other cases, m = 1). These results indicate that a two-step review process of medical records can produce judgments about adverse events that are both reliable and valid.

This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit: