ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient safety data including rates of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) are often derived from hospital discharge codes. With the transition to electronic medical records (EMRs), we hypothesized that electronic provider-entered delivery data would more accurately document obstetric perineal injury than traditional billing/diagnostic codes. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of perineal laceration diagnoses after singleton vaginal deliveries during one calendar year at an American tertiary academic medical center. We reviewed the entire hospital chart to determine the most likely laceration diagnosis and compared that expert review diagnosis (ExpRD) with documentation in the EMR delivery summary (EDS) and ICD-9 diagnostic codes (IDCs). RESULTS: We retrospectively selected 354 total delivery records. OASI complicated 56 of those. 303 records (86%) were coded identically by the EDS and IDCs. Diagnoses from the IDCs and the EDS were mostly correct compared with ExpRD (sensitivity = 96%, specificity = 100%). There was no systematic over- or under-diagnosis of OASI for either the EDS (p = 0.070) or the IDCs (p = 0.447). When considering all laceration types the EDS was correct for 21 (5.9%) lacerations that were incorrect according to the IDCs. Overall, the EDS was more accurate (p < 0.05) owing to errors in IDC minor laceration diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic medical record delivery summary data and EMR-derived diagnostic codes similarly characterize OASI. The EDS does not improve OASI reporting, but may be more accurate when considering all perineal lacerations. This assumes that providers have correctly identified and categorized the lacerations that they record in the EMR.
