Tuesday, November 10, 2015

How we do Quality Assurance for the VDW

Last weekend I attended the most excellent PCORI Data Quality Code-a-thon, hosted by Michael Kahn and his colleagues over at University of Colorado, at which I met some really interesting and smart people doing really interesting work.  A couple of them evinced an interest in VDW QA work and I said I'd share the substantive checks that we are doing.

Some Context

This is volunteer work

Like most everything VDW, QA work is largely unfunded and distributed across implementing sites.  Volunteers from the data area workgroups (e.g., Utilization, Pharmacy, Enrollment) put together lists of checks pertaining mostly to their data areas, write VDW programs that implement the checks & periodically (generally annually, but sometimes more frequently) make a formal request that implementing sites run the code & submit their results to the program author(s) for collation & reporting out to the VDW Implementation Group.

One big implication of this is that our approach is not nearly as coordinated as an outside user might expect.  I'd like to say that we are evolving toward a common approach, and we do have a new(ish) "Cross-File QA" group that's taking on meta-standards for QA work, but there is definitely a long way to go before this is uniform enough to be coherent to anyone not familiar with the history.

QA Is Multi-purpose

We generally try to kill 2 birds with our QA stones.  Primarily we want to characterize the quality of our implementations for ourselves, each other, and our user community.  But we also love it when our reports are useful to Investigators writing grant applications, who sometimes need to brag about  e.g., how many person/years worth of data we have across the network for people with a drug benefit.

This can be a slippery slope, on occasion leading individual sites to declare that a given measure has strayed from QA (which is generally exempt from IRB approval) into substantive research territory, or else exposes what should be proprietary information.  One example that comes to mind on Enrollment was a measure of churn--e.g., in a typical month, how many enrollees does a site tend to lose to disenrollment, and how many do they pick up?  It's a constant dance/negotiation.

Roy's QA Prejudices

To my way of thinking the best QA:
  1. Enables implementers to find (and fix) their own errors first, before exposing them to any larger audience.  This is a matter of professional courtesy.
  2. Includes as many objective checks as are practical to implement in code, and presents the running user with:
    1. A clear list of what the checks are
    2. What the tolerance is for those checks (e.g., 3% of your patient language records can have nonstandard values, but any more than 5% and we're going to say you failed the check).
    3. Whether the file passed or failed each check.
  3. More general descriptives characterizing the amount and predominant values in the data.  These are often most useful when viewed as part of collated output so you can compare sites.
  4. Collated quality/descriptive reports 
    1. should be readily available to the user community (we have them up on the HCSRN web portal, behind the password-protected area).
    2. should be easily updated (completely automatically if possible) so that implementers are incentivized to fix whatever issues they can as soon as possible (and get credit for doing so).
Following the lead of the Utilization (encounters) workgroup, we generally refer to the objective checks as "Tier 1" checks and the descriptives as "Tier 2".  Like most things, the checks are a matter of negotiation within the workgroup.  I've come to think of them as crucial adjuncts to the specs themselves because they sometimes reveal reasonable disagreements on how to interpret the specs.

The Checks


Tier 1

  1. All variables listed in the spec exist and are the proper type (character or numeric).  I don't personally like to check length and so don't, though there is diversity of opinion on that & so some QA programs do.  There is no tolerance on these checks--any missing variable is a fail.
  2. For those variables that have an enumerated domain of permissible values (pretty much everything but MRN and birth_date) that those are the only values found.  If > 2% of the values found are off-spec we issue a warning.  At 5% or greater we fail the check.
  3. MRN is unique.  Zero tolerance here.

Tier 2

  1. Counts of records (not just current enrollees) by
    1. Gender
    2. Race
    3. Ethnicity
    4. Age group
    5. Need for an interpreter
  2. Counts of enrollees over time by those same variables.


Tier 1

  1. All variables listed in the spec exist and are the proper type (character or numeric). Here again zero tolerance.
  2. For those variables that have an enumerated domain of permissible values (all but MRN, the start/stop dates, PCP and PCC) that those are the only values found.  Same tolerance here as with demog-- > 2% is a warn, > 5% a fail.
  3. Enr_end must fall after enr_start.  Zero tolerance.
  4. Enr_end must not be in the future.  Warn at 1%, fail at 3%.
  5. At least one of the plan type flags (which say whether the person/period was enrolled in a PPO, HMO, etc.) must be set.  Warn at 2% and fail at 4%.
  6. Ditto for the insurance type flags (e.g., commercial, medicare/caid, etc.).
  7. If any of the Medicare part insurance flags are set, the general Medicare insurance flag must be set. Zero tolerance.
  8. No period prior to 2006 should have the Medicare Part D flag set. 1% warn, 2% fail.
  9. If the Part D flag is set, the drugcov flag must also be set.
  10. If the high-deductible health plan flag is set, either the commercial or the private-pay flag must also be set.
  11. If any of the incomplete_* variable values is 'X' (not implemented) then all values must be 'X'.
(That last check refers to six variables too new to be listed in the publicly available specs.  They let implementers surface known problems with data capture, if there are any (for example at Group Health we only have tumor registry information on people who live in one of the seventeen WA State SEER counties).

Tier 2

  1. Counts and percents of enrollees over time by all substantive enrollment variables--plan types, insurance types, drug coverage, etc.
  2. Counts & percents over time by several demographic variables (listed above under demographics).
  3. Counts & percents of enrollees over time by whether the values in primary care clinic (PCC) and primary care physician (PCP) appear to be valid (that is, contain at least one non-space and non-zero character).

More Later

As I'm the primary author of the E/D checks, these were the easiest to hand.  I'll be back with at least some of the other checks the other groups have implemented.