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

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 va...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHand (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
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.10.2023
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1558-9447
1558-9455
1558-9455
DOI:10.1177/15589447221082163