Automated Versus Semi-Automated Lab Value Extraction for the VA Cardiac Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Harris AHS, Shotqara A, Meerwijk EL, Tamang SR, Eddington H, Logan D, Massarweh NN. Automated Versus Semi-Automated Lab Value Extraction for the VA Cardiac Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The Journal of surgical research. 2024 Oct 1; 302:47-52.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) trains surgical quality nurses (SQNs) at each Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital to extract or verify 187 variables from the medical record for all cardiac surgical cases. For ten preoperative laboratory values, VASQIP has a semiautomated (SA) system in which local lab values are automatically extracted, verified by SQNs, and lab values recorded at other VA facilities are manually extracted. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a method to automate the extraction of these ten preoperative laboratory values and compare results with the current SA method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed methods to extract ten preoperative laboratory values and measurement dates from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse using Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes. Automated (A) versus SA information extraction was compared in terms of agreement, conformance to data definitions, proximity to surgery, and missingness. RESULTS: For surgeries with both A and SA lab values, the intraclass correlation coefficients for the ten variables ranged from 0.90 to 0.98. For several variables, the A method resulted in much lower rates of missing data (e.g., 2.4% versus 22.5% missing data for high-density lipoprotein) and eliminated out-of-date-range entries. CONCLUSIONS: Although SQN-extracted data are widely considered the gold standard within National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs, there may be advantages to fully automating extraction of lab values, including high congruence with SA SQN-extracted or verified values and lower rates of missingness and out-of-date-range data.