ABSTRACT
Background The link between ethnicity and healthcare inequity, and the urgency for better data is well-recognised. This study describes ethnicity data in nation-wide electronic health records in England, UK. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using de-identified person-level records for the England population available in the National Health Service (NHS) Digital trusted research environment. Primary care records (GDPPR) were linked to hospital and national mortality records. We assessed completeness, consistency, and granularity of ethnicity records using all available SNOMED-CT concepts for ethnicity and NHS ethnicity categories. Findings From 61.8 million individuals registered with a primary care practice in England, 51.5 (83.3%) had at least one ethnicity record in GDPPR, increasing to 93·9% when linked with hospital records. Approximately 12·0% had at least two conflicting ethnicity codes in primary care records. Women were more likely to have ethnicity recorded than men. Ethnicity was missing most frequently in individuals from 18 to 39 years old and in the southern regions of England. Individuals with an ethnicity record had more comorbidities recorded than those without. Of 489 SNOMED-CT ethnicity concepts available, 255 were used in primary care records. Discrepancies between SNOMED-CT and NHS ethnicity categories were observed, specifically within “Other-” ethnicity groups. Interpretation More than 250 ethnicity sub-groups may be found in health records for the English population, although commonly categorised into “White”, “Black”, “Asian”, “Mixed”, and “Other”. One in ten individuals do not have ethnicity information recorded in primary care or hospital records. SNOMED-CT codes represent more diversity in ethnicity groups than the NHS ethnicity classification. Improved recording of self-reported ethnicity at first point-of-care and consistency in ethnicity classification across healthcare settings can potentially improve the accuracy of ethnicity in research and ultimately care for all ethnicities. Funding British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre led by Health Data Research UK. Research in context Evidence before this study Ethnicity has been highlighted as a significant factor in the disproportionate impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Better knowledge of ethnicity data recorded in real clinical practice is required to improve health research and ultimately healthcare. We searched PubMed from database inception to 14 th July 2022 for publications using the search terms “ethnicity” and “electronic health records” or “EHR,” without language restrictions. 228 publications in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 304 publications between 2020 and 2022 were identified. However, none of these publications used or reported any of over 400 available SNOMED-CT concepts for ethnicity to account for more granularity and diversity than captured by traditional high-level classification limited to 5 to 9 ethnicity groups. Added value of this study We provide a comprehensive study of the largest collection of ethnicity records from a national-level electronic health records trusted research environment, exploring completeness, consistency, and granularity. This work can serve as a data resource profile of ethnicity from routinely-collected EHR in England. Implications of all the available evidence To achieve equity in healthcare, we need to understand the differences between individuals, as well as the influence of ethnicity both on health status and on health interventions, including variation in the behaviour of tests and therapies. Thus, there is a need for measurements, thresholds, and risk estimates to be tailored to different ethnic groups. This study presents the different medical concepts describing ethnicity in routinely collected data that are readily available to researchers and highlights key elements for improving their accuracy in research. We aim to encourage researchers to use more granular ethnicity than the than typical approaches which aggregate ethnicity into a limited number of categories, failing to reflect the diversity of underlying populations. Accurate ethnicity data will lead to a better understanding of individual diversity, which will help to address disparities and influence policy recommendations that can translate into better, fairer health for all.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective Evaluate antithrombotic (AT) use in individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) and high stroke risk (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score>=2) and investigate whether pre-existing AT use may improve COVID-19 outcomes. Methods Individuals with AF and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score>=2 on January 1 st 2020 were identified using pseudonymised, linked electronic health records for 56 million people in England and followed-up until May 1 st 2021. Factors associated with pre-existing AT use were analysed using logistic regression. Differences in COVID-19 related hospitalisation and death were analysed using logistic and Cox regression for individuals exposed to pre-existing AT use vs no AT use, anticoagulants (AC) vs antiplatelets (AP) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs warfarin. Results From 972,971 individuals with AF and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score>=2, 88.0% (n=856,336) had pre-existing AT use, 3.8% (n=37,418) had a COVID-19 related hospitalisation and 2.2% (n=21,116) died. Factors associated with no AT use included comorbidities that may contraindicate AT use (liver disease and history of falls) and demographics (socioeconomic status and ethnicity). Pre-existing AT use was associated with lower odds of death (OR=0.92 [0 . 87-0 . 96 at 95% CI] ), but higher odds of hospitalisation OR=1.20 [1 . 15-1 . 26 at 95% CI] ). The same pattern was observed for AC vs AP (death (OR=0.93 [0.87-0.98]), hospitalisation (OR=1.17 [1.11-1.24])) but not for DOACs vs warfarin (death (OR=1.00 [0.95-1.05]), hospitalisation (OR=0.86 [0.82-0.89]). Conclusions Pre-existing AT use may offer marginal protection against COVID-19 death, with AC offering more protection than AP. Although this association may not be causal, it provides further incentive to improve AT coverage for eligible individuals with AF. KEY QUESTIONS What is already known about this subject? Anticoagulants (AC), a sub-class of antithrombotics (AT), reduce the risk of stroke and are recommended for individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) and at high risk of stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score>=2, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold). However, previous evaluations suggest that up to one third of these individuals may not be taking AC. Over estimation of bleeding and fall risk in elderly patients have been identified as potential factors in this under medicating. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, several observational studies have observed correlations between pre-existing AT use, particularly anticoagulants (AC), and lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes such as hospitalisation and death. However, these correlations are inconsistent across studies and have not compared all major sub-types of AT in one study. What does this study add? This study uses datasets covering primary care, secondary care, pharmacy dispensing, death registrations, multiple COVID-19 diagnoses routes and vaccination records for 56 million people in England and is the largest scale evaluation of AT use to date. This provides the statistical power to robustly analyse targeted sub-types of AT and control for a wide range of potential confounders. All code developed for the study is opensource and an updated nationwide evaluation can be rapidly created for future time points. In 972,971 individuals with AF and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score>=2, we observed 88.0% (n=856,336) with pre-existing AT use which was associated with marginal protection against COVID-19 death (OR=0.92 [0 . 87-0 . 96 at 95% CI] ). How might this impact on clinical practice? These findings can help shape global AT medication policy and provide population-scale, observational analysis results alongside gold-standard randomised control trials to help assess whether a potential beneficial effect of pre-existing AT use on COVID-19 death alters risk to benefit assessments in AT prescribing decisions.