Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1997; 36(03): 191-200
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1636841
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Methodological Considerations in the Design of an Obstetric Database Abstracted from Medical Records

H. E. Harris
1   Maternal and Child Health Research Programme, School of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK
,
G. T. H. Ellison
1   Maternal and Child Health Research Programme, School of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK
2   Institute for Behavioural Sciences, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
,
M. Holliday
3   School of Health, University of Greenwich, London, UK
,
E. Lucassen
1   Maternal and Child Health Research Programme, School of Chemical and Life Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK
› Author AffiliationsThe authors would like to thank all of the staff at maternity services in the South Thames Region NHS Trust where this study was conducted for their co-operation and invaluable assistance. In particular to the Deputy Manager of Medical Records for helping access the Trust’s obstetric notes and to Caroline Nickson who helped conduct the survey of current midwifery practice. Financial support was provided by the Dev R fund of the University of Greenwich.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

The quality of maternal information contained within contemporary obstetric notes was investigated by abstracting data from the medical records of multiparous women who were admitted to a major city hospital in the South Thames Region. Potential sources of error were identified by comparing information recorded in different sections of each obstetric notes and within the obstetric notes of consecutive pregnancies. The format of the obstetric notes largely determined which variables were recorded and, to some extent, the accuracy of information collected. However, the quality of the data ultimately depended upon whether each variable was self-reported or directly measured. Self-reported variables were subject to selective omission and subjective bias, while measured variables were susceptible to inaccurate equipment and poor measurement practice. By interviewing a sample of midwives currently involved in antenatal care at the Trust it was possible to confirm that extensive variation in measurement and recording procedures routinely occurred.

Keywords

Obstetric Data - Medical Records - Accuracy - Database
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Moidu K, Singh AK, Boström K, Chowd-hury S, Trell E, Wigertz O, Kjessler B. Towards an essential data set: Applicability in the domain of maternal health services. Meth Inform Med 1992; 31: 182-92.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Peoples-Sheps MD, Kalsbeek WD, Siegel E, Dewes C, Rogers M, Schwartz R. Pre-natal records: A National Survey of Content. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164: 514-21.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Johnson SR, Kolberg BH, Varner MW, Railsback D. Maternal obesity in pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987; 164: 431-7.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Hall MH, Chng PK, MacGillivray r. Is routine antenatal care worthwhile?. Lancet 1980; 02: 78-80.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kay S, Purves IN. Medical records and other stories: a narratological framework. Meth Inform Med 1996; 35: 72-87.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Maclntyre S. Some notes on record taking and making in an antenatal clinic. Sociologic Rev 1978; 26: 595-611.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Timmers T. Is the computer-based patient record an analog or a model of the patient?. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 108.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 David RJ. The quality and completeness of birthweight and gestational age data in computerized birth files. AJPH 1980; 70: 964-73.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hewson D, Bennett A. Childbirth research data: Medical records or women’s reports?. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 484-91.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Aaronson LS, Burman ME. Use of health records in research: reliability and validity issues. Res Nurs HIth 1994; 17: 67-73.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Burman JF. The misinformation era: The fall of the medical record. Ann Intern Med 1989; 110: 482-4.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Musen MA. The strained quality of medical data. Meth Inform Med 1989; 123-5.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Reiser SJ. The clinical record in medicine. Part 2: Reforming content and purpose. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 980-5.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Van der Lei J. Use and abuse of computerstored medical records. Meth Inform Med 1991; 30: 79-80.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Quaak MJ, Frans RWesterman, van Bemmel JH. Comparisons between written and computerised patient histories. BMJ 1987; 295: 184-90.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Oppenheim AN. Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. 2nd ed.. London: Pinter Publishers Limited; 1992
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Woolf M. The reliability of fertility data obtained from pregnancy histories. Studies on medical and population subjects No. 40. London: OPCS; 1979
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Harris HE, Ellison GTH, Holliday M, Lucassen E. Do the increased weight gain recommendations for pregnancy predispose parous women to obesity?. Proc Nutr Soc. (in press).
    PubMed
  • 19 Parker JD, Abrams B. Differences in postpartum weight retention between black and white mothers. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 768-74.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Williamson DF, Madans J, Pamuk E, Flegal KM, Kendrick JS, Serdula MK. A prospective study of childbearing and 10-year weight gain in US white women 25 to 45 years of age. Int J Obesity 1994; 18: 561-9.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rona RJ, Morris RW. National Study of Health and Growth: social and family factors and overweight in English and Scottish parents. Ann Hum Biol 1982; 09: 147-56.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Greene GW, Smiciklas-Wright H, Scholl TO, Karp RJ. Postpartum weight change: how much of the weight gained in pregnancy will be lost after delivery?. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 701-7.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Smith DE, Lewis CE, Caveny JL, Perkins LL, Burke GL, Bild DE. Longitudinal changes in adiposity associated with pregnancy. The CARDIA Study. JAMA 1994; 271: 1747-51.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rookus MA, Rokebrand P, Burema J, Deurenberg P. The effect of pregnancy on the body mass index 9 months postpartum in 49 women. Int J Obesity 1987; 11: 609-18.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Schauberger CW, Rooney BL, Brimer LM. Factors that influence weight loss in the puerperium. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 79: 424-9.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Green JR, Schumacher LB, Pawson IG, Partridge JC, Kretchmer N. Influence of maternal body habitus and glucose tolerance on birth weight. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 235-40.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Catalano PM, Roman NM, Tyzbir ED, Merritt AO, Driscoll P, Armini SB. Weight gain in women with gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 523-8.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Gleeson RP, Lobb MO. The prevalence of confidential information in antenatal records. J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 08: 219-21.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Elbourne D, Richardson M, Chalmers I, Waterhouse I, Holt E. The Newbury Maternity Care Study: a randomized controlled trial to assess a policy of women holding their own obstetric records. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 612-9.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Horwitz RI, Yu EC. Assessing the reliability of epidemiologic data obtained from medical records. J Chron Dis 1984; 37: 825-31.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Demlo LK, Campbell PM, Spaght SBrown. Reliability of information abstracted from patients’ medical records. Med Care 1978; 16: 995-1005.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Hendrickson L, Myers J. Some sources and potential consequences of errors in medical data recording. Meth Inform Med 1973; 12: 38-45.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Kokotailo PK, Adger H, Duggan AK, Repke J, Joffe A. Cigarette, alcohol and other drug use by school-age pregnant adolescents: Prevalence, detection, and associated risk factors. Pediatrics 1992; 90: 328-34.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Kroegar A. Health interview surveys in developing countries: A review of the methods and results. Int J Epidemiol 1983; 12: 465-81.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Palta M, Prineas RJ, Berman R, Hannan P. Comparison of self-reported and measured height and weight. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 115: 223-30.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Stewart AL. The reliability and validity of self-reported weight and height. J Chron Dis 1982; 35: 295-309.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Stevens-Simon C, Roghmann KJ, McAnarney ER. Relationship of self-reported prepregnant weight and weight gain during pregnancy to maternal body habitus and age. JADA 1992; 92: 85-7.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Stunkard AJ, Albaum JM. The accuracy of self-reported weights. Am J Clin Nutr 1981; 34: 1593-9.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Bean JA, Leeper JD, Wallace RB, Sherman BM, Jagger H. Variations in the reporting of menstrual histories. Am J Epidemiol 1979; 109: 181-5.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Corwin RG, Krober M, Roth HP. Patients’ accuracy in reporting their past medical history, A study of 90 patients with peptic ulcer. J Chron Dis 1971; 23: 875-9.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Wilcox AJ, Horney LF. Accuracy of spontaneous abortion recall. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 120: 727-33.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Paganini-Hill A, Ross RK. Reliability of recall of drug usage and other health-related information. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 116: 114-22.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Oberlander J, Saunders C, Knox L, Crosby L, Mullen J. Survey of weight scale variability. JPEN 1981; 04: 606.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Schlegal-Pratt K, Heizer WD. The accuracy of scales used to weigh patients. Nutr Clin Prac 1990; 05: 254-7.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Kramer MS, McLean FH, Boyd ME, Usher RH. The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm, and postterm gestations. JAMA 1988; 260: 3306-8.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ott WJ. Accurate gestational dating. Obstet ‘ Gynecol 1985; 66: 311-5.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Backe B, Nakling J. Term prediction in routine ultrasound practice. Acta Obst Gynecol Scand 1994; 73: 113-8.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Rowlands S, Royston P. Estimated date of delivery from last menstrual period and ultrasound scan: which is more accurate?. Br J Gen Prac 1993; 43: 322-5.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Rasmussen S, Dalaker K, Berge LN, Lundgren R, Løvslett K. One-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: An evaluation. Acta Obst Gynecol Scand 1990; 69: 581-8.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Hadlock FP. Sonographic estimation of fetal age and weight. Radiologic Clin N Am 1990; 28: 39-50.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Hadlock FP, Deter RL, Harrist RB, Park SK. The use of ultrasound to determine fetal age - A review. Med Ultrasound 1983; 07: 95-103.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. How accurate is second trimester fetal dating?. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10: 557-61.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Piantelli G, Sacchini C, Coltri A, Ludovici G, Paita Y, Gramellini D. Ultrasound dating-curve analysis in the assessment of gestational age. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1994; 21: 108-18.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Persson PH, Weldner BM. Reliability of ultrasound fetometry in estimating gestational age in the second trimester. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986; 65: 481-3.
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Wolfe HM, Sokol RJ, Martier SM, Zador IE. Maternal obesity: A potential source of error in sonographic prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 339-42.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Sweet BR. Baillière’s Midwives’ Dictionary. 8th ed.. London: Baillière Tindall; 1992
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 57 Registrar General’s Classification of Occupations. London: HMSO; 1970