Validation of a Smartphone-Based Institutional Electronic Data Capture System for Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint Arthroplasty

• Published in: Hand (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 18; no. 7; pp. 1135 - 1141
• Main Authors: Chughtai, Morad, Scollan, Joseph P., Emara, Ahmed K., Jin, Yuxuan, Evans, Peter J., Shapiro, David B., Styron, Joseph F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.10.2023
• Subjects: Arthroplasty; Carpometacarpal Joints - surgery; Humans; Orthopedics; Smartphone; Surgery; Thumb - surgery; database; arthritis; complications; OrthoMidas episode of care; OME; surgical details; CMC; perioperative outcomes; diagnosis; dataset; prospective
• ISSN: 1558-9447; 1558-9455; 1558-9455
• DOI: 10.1177/15589447221082163

Background: The Orthopaedic Minimal Data Set (OrthoMiDaS) Episode of care (OME) is a prospectively collected database enabling capture of patient and surgeon-reported data in a more efficient, comprehensive, and dependable manner than electronic medical record (EMR) review. We aimed to assess and validate the OME as a data capture tool for carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty compared to traditional EMR-based review. Specifically, we aimed to: (1) compare the completeness of the OME versus EMR data; and (2) evaluate the extent of agreement between the OME and EMR data-based datasets for carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty. Methods: The first 100 thumb CMC arthroplasties after OME inception (Febuary, 2015) were included. Blinded EMR-based review of the same cases was performedfor 48 perioperative variables and compared to their OME-sourced counterparts. Outcomes included completion rates and agreement measures in OME versus EMR-based control datasets. Results: The OME demonstrated superior completion rates compared to EMR-based retrospective review. There was high agreement between both datasets where 75.6% (34/45) had an agreement proportion of >0.90% and 82.2% (37/45) had an agreement proportion of >0.80. Over 40% of the variables had almost perfect to substantial agreement (κ > 0.60). Among the 6 variables demonstrating poor agreement, the surgeon-inputted OME values were more accurate than the EMR-based review control. Conclusions: This study validates the use of the OME for CMC arthroplasty by illustrating that it is reliably able to match or supersede traditional chart review for data collection; thereby offering a high-quality tool for future CMC arthroplasty studies.