Validity of Administrative Claims and Electronic Health Registry Data From a Single Practice for Eye Health Surveillance.

Importance: Diagnostic information from administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) data may serve as an important resource for surveillance of vision and eye health, but the accuracy and validity of these sources are unknown. Objective: To estimate the accuracy of diagnosis codes in administrative claims and EHRs compared to retrospective medical record review. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compared the presence and prevalence of eye disorders based on diagnostic codes in EHR and claims records vs clinical medical record review at University of Washington-affiliated ophthalmology or optometry clinics from May 2018 to April 2020. Patients 16 years and older with an eye examination in the previous 2 years were included, oversampled for diagnosed major eye diseases and visual acuity loss. Exposures: Patients were assigned to vision and eye health condition categories based on diagnosis codes present in their billing claims history and EHR using the diagnostic case definitions of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) as well as clinical assessment based on retrospective medical record review. Main Outcome and Measures: Accuracy was measured as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of claims and EHR-based diagnostic coding vs retrospective review of clinical assessments and treatment plans. Results: Among 669 participants (mean [range] age, 66.1 [16-99] years; 357 [53.4%] female), identification of diseases in billing claims and EHR data using VEHSS case definitions was accurate for diabetic retinopathy (claims AUC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98; EHR AUC, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), glaucoma (claims AUC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93; EHR AUC, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95), age-related macular degeneration (claims AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.92; EHR AUC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98), and cataracts (claims AUC, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86; EHR AUC, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93). However, several condition categories showed low validity with AUCs below 0.7, including diagnosed disorders of refraction and accommodation (claims AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.49-0.60; EHR AUC, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.67), diagnosed blindness and low vision (claims AUC, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58; EHR AUC, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54-0.59), and orbital and external diseases (claims AUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.69; EHR AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.59-0.70). Conclusion and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of current and recent ophthalmology patients with high rates of eye disorders and vision loss, identification of major vision-threatening eye disorders based on diagnosis codes in claims and EHR records was accurate. However, vision loss, refractive error, and other broadly defined or lower-risk disorder categories were less accurately identified by diagnosis codes in claims and EHR data.

Comparing Telephone Survey Responses to Best-Corrected Visual Acuity to Estimate the Accuracy of Identifying Vision Loss: Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported questions on blindness and vision problems are collected in many national surveys. Recently released surveillance estimates on the prevalence of vision loss used self-reported data to predict variation in the prevalence of objectively measured acuity loss among population groups for whom examination data are not available. However, the validity of self-reported measures to predict prevalence and disparities in visual acuity has not been established. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of self-reported vision loss measures compared to best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), inform the design and selection of questions for future data collection, and identify the concordance between self-reported vision and measured acuity at the population level to support ongoing surveillance efforts. METHODS: We calculated accuracy and correlation between self-reported visual function versus BCVA at the individual and population level among patients from the University of Washington ophthalmology or optometry clinics with a prior eye examination, randomly oversampled for visual acuity loss or diagnosed eye diseases. Self-reported visual function was collected via telephone survey. BCVA was determined based on retrospective chart review. Diagnostic accuracy of questions at the person level was measured based on the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), whereas population-level accuracy was determined based on correlation. RESULTS: The survey question, "Are you blind or do you have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses?" had the highest accuracy for identifying patients with blindness (BCVA ≤20/200; AUC=0.797). The highest accuracy for detecting any vision loss (BCVA <20/40) was achieved by responses of "fair," "poor," or "very poor" to the question, "At the present time, would you say your eyesight, with glasses or contact lenses if you wear them, is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor" (AUC=0.716). At the population level, the relative relationship between prevalence based on survey questions and BCVA remained stable for most demographic groups, with the only exceptions being groups with small sample sizes, and these differences were generally not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although survey questions are not considered to be sufficiently accurate to be used as a diagnostic test at the individual level, we did find relatively high levels of accuracy for some questions. At the population level, we found that the relative prevalence of the 2 most accurate survey questions were highly correlated with the prevalence of measured visual acuity loss among nearly all demographic groups. The results of this study suggest that self-reported vision questions fielded in national surveys are likely to yield an accurate and stable signal of vision loss across different population groups, although the actual measure of prevalence from these questions is not directly analogous to that of BCVA.

A tele-health intervention to increase physical fitness in people with spinal cord injury and cardiometabolic disease or risk factors: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: We used a single-blind parallel-group design to test the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a telehealth-based physical activity counseling intervention to increase physical fitness in people with SCI. SETTING: Seattle, Washington, United States. METHODS: We recruited under-active, manual wheelchair-using adults at least 1-year post-SCI who had at least two cardiometabolic risk factors/diseases. Participants underwent baseline tests of peak cardiorespiratory fitness; lipids, glucose and insulin; muscle and fat mass; self-reported physical activity, depression, pain and other factors. Participants were assigned 1:1 to treatment vs. usual care (UC) control conditions via concealed computerized randomization. Treatment was delivered via telephone and adapted from the 16-session Diabetes Prevention Program. All baseline tests were repeated at 6 months. Prespecified feasibility goals were to recruit at least nine participants/quarter and retain 85% with complete fitness testing at 6 months. Prespecified efficacy goals were to demonstrate at least a medium treatment effect size (0.50) on fitness, self-reported physical activity, and other outcomes. RESULTS: Seven participants were randomized to treatment, 8 to UC over 15 months. Maximum recruitment was only 5.4 participants/quarter. Thirteen (87%) of participants were retained. The effects of treatment on fitness and most cardiometabolic risk factors did not meet expectations, whereas the effects on self-reported physical activity, depression, and pain did meet expectations. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet key efficacy and feasibility objectives, yet there were some promising effects on self-report measures and lessons to be learned for designing future trials.