Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:46:34.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A consensus-based process to define standard national data elements for a canadian emergency department information system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Grant Innes ,
Michael Murray ,
Eric Grafstein  and
Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS) working group
Grant Innes*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC
Michael Murray
Affiliation:
CEDIS working group Emergency Services, Royal Victoria Hospital, Barrie, Ont
Eric Grafstein
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard St., Vancouver BC V6Z 1Y6; 604 806–8980, fax 801 659–0455, ginnes@interchange.ubc.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Canadian hospitals gather few emergency department (ED) data, and most cannot track their case mix, care processes, utilization or outcomes. A standard national ED data set would enhance clinical care, quality improvement and research at a local, regional and national level. The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the National Emergency Nurses Affiliation and l’Association des médecins d’urgence du Québec established a joint working group whose objective was to develop a standard national ED data set that meets the information needs of Canadian EDs. The working group reviewed data elements derived from Australia’s Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset, the US Data Elements for Emergency Department Systems document, the Ontario Hospital Emergency Department Working Group data set and the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s National Ambulatory Care Reporting System data set. By consensus, the group defined each element as mandatory, preferred or optional, and modified data definitions to increase their relevance to the ED context. The working group identified 69 mandatory elements, 5 preferred elements and 29 optional elements representing demographic, process, clinical and utilization measures. The Canadian Emergency Department Information System data set is a feasible, relevant ED data set developed by emergency physicians and nurses and tailored to the needs of Canadian EDs. If widely adopted, it represents an important step toward a national ED information system that will enable regional, provincial and national comparisons and enhance clinical care, quality improvement and research applications in both rural and urban settings.

Keywords

informaticsemergency departmentinformation system
Type
ED Administration • Administration du Du
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 2001 , pp. 277 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2001

References

1.Institute of Medicine. Health data in the information age: use, disclosure and privacy. Donaldson, MS, Lohr, KN, editors. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1994.Google Scholar
2.Burstin, HR, Conn, A, Setnik, G, Rucker, DW, Cleary, PD, O’Neil, AC, et al. for the Harvard Emergency Department Quality Study Investigators. Benchmarking and quality improvement: The Harvard emergency department quality study. Am J Med 1999; 107:437–49.Google Scholar
3.Beveridge, R. CAEP Issues. The Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale: a new and critical element in health care reform. Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. J Emerg Med 1998; 16:507–11.Google Scholar
4.Chassin, MR, Galvin, RW.The urgent need to improve health care quality: Institute of Medicine national roundtable on health care quality. JAMA 1998;280:1000–5.Google Scholar
5.Ontario Ministry of Health. Final report of the Steering Committee Review of Hospital and Community Based Emergency Health Care in Ontario. July 1996; Sect 1:28–39; Sect 8:1–7.Google Scholar
6.Bota, GW, Bretzlaff, GA, Sahai, VS, Rowe, BH.The reliability and validity of a truncated diagnostic coding system for emergency patient encounters. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5:524.Google Scholar
7.The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. DEEDS. Data Elements for Emergency Department Systems, release 1.0. 1997. Available: www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pubres/deedspage.htm (accessed 2001 Aug 29).Google Scholar
8.Weiss, HB, Dill, SM, Forjuoh, SN, Garrison, HG, Cohen, JH.Injury surveillance: a statewide survey of emergency department data collection practices. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:635–40.Google Scholar
9.Pollock, DA, Adams, DL, Bernardo, LM, Bradley, V, Brandt, MD, Davis, TE, et al. Data Elements for Emergency Department Systems, release 1.0 (DEEDS): a summary report. DEEDS Writing Committee. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31:264–73.Google Scholar
10.Acute Health Division, Department of Human Services. The Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset (VEMD) User Manual, July 2001. Victoria (Australia): Version 6.0, 2001/2002. Available: www.dhs.vic.gov.au/ahs/hdss/manual (accessed 2001 Aug 31).Google Scholar
11.Beveridge, R, Clarke, B, Janes, L, Savage, N, Thompson, J, Dodd, G, et al. Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale: implementation guidelines. CJEM 1999;1 (suppl):S2–28.Google Scholar
12.The Canadian Institute for Health Information. National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) Implementation. Available: www.cihi.ca/Roadmap/NACRS/bulletins.shtml (accessed 2001 Aug 29).Google Scholar
13.The Canadian Institute for Health Information. What we do. Available: www.cihi.ca/eindex.htm (accessed 2001 Aug 29).Google Scholar