%0 Journal Article
%@ 1438-8871
%I JMIR Publications
%V 24
%N 12
%P e41889
%T Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study
%A Fadahunsi,Kayode Philip
%A Wark,Petra A
%A Mastellos,Nikolaos
%A Neves,Ana Luisa
%A Gallagher,Joseph
%A Majeed,Azeem
%A Webster,Andrew
%A Smith,Anthony
%A Choo-Kang,Brian
%A Leon,Catherine
%A Edwards,Christopher
%A O'Shea,Conor
%A Heitz,Elizabeth
%A Kayode,Olamide Valentine
%A Nash,Makeba
%A Kowalski,Martin
%A Jiwani,Mateen
%A O'Callaghan,Michael Edmund
%A Zary,Nabil
%A Henderson,Nicola
%A Chavannes,Niels H
%A Čivljak,Rok
%A Olubiyi,Olubunmi Abiola
%A Mahapatra,Piyush
%A Panday,Rishi Nannan
%A Oriji,Sunday O
%A Fox,Tatiana Erlikh
%A Faint,Victoria
%A Car,Josip
%+ Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, The Reynolds Building, St Dunstan’s Road, London, W6 8RP, United Kingdom, 44 020 7594 0799, josip.car@imperial.ac.uk
%K information quality
%K digital health technology
%K patient safety
%K perspective
%K digital health technologies
%K DHT
%K thematic analysis
%K clarity
%K understandable
%K understandability
%K readability
%K searchability
%K security
%K decision support system
%K framework development
%K framework
%D 2022
%7 6.12.2022
%9 Original Paper
%J J Med Internet Res
%G English
%X Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. Objective: This study explored clinicians’ perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Methods: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. Results: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. Conclusions: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430 
%M 36472901
%R 10.2196/41889
%U https://www.jmir.org/2022/12/e41889
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/41889
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36472901