For the CRDS team, as we started looking at the quality of the data as a part of our report to the CDM, after some tweaking for local oddities (no hispanic is NOT a race, and boy we handle smoking oddly here in WI), our data was coming up pretty clean. But one of the thing that tripped us up was the number of patients that had a race the equated to unknown (almost 50% instead of the goal less than 15%). The hypothesis is that the older imported records did not correctly have race correctly code seems to be born out by Debbie's analysis.
-TM From: Yoshihara Deborah L Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:59 AM To: Mish Thomas F; Wanta Keith M Subject: race of active patients So if I look at the active patients instead of all patients, the race ratios are more in line. (2 visits within the last 3 years, separated by 30 days) Keith - perhaps note in the ADD that we have historical data that probably didn't collect race. count race percentage 414131 White 86.2% 24971 Black 5.2% 16000 Asian 3.3% 6983 Decline 1.5% 873 Hawaiian 0.2% 4828 A. Indian 1.0% 4513 Null 0.9% 7972 Unavailable 1.7% Total 480271
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
