TY  - JOUR
AU  - Fadahunsi, Kayode Philip
AU  - Wark, Petra A
AU  - Mastellos, Nikolaos
AU  - Neves, Ana Luisa
AU  - Gallagher, Joseph
AU  - Majeed, Azeem
AU  - Webster, Andrew
AU  - Smith, Anthony
AU  - Choo-Kang, Brian
AU  - Leon, Catherine
AU  - Edwards, Christopher
AU  - O'Shea, Conor
AU  - Heitz, Elizabeth
AU  - Kayode, Olamide Valentine
AU  - Nash, Makeba
AU  - Kowalski, Martin
AU  - Jiwani, Mateen
AU  - O'Callaghan, Michael Edmund
AU  - Zary, Nabil
AU  - Henderson, Nicola
AU  - Chavannes, Niels H
AU  - Čivljak, Rok
AU  - Olubiyi, Olubunmi Abiola
AU  - Mahapatra, Piyush
AU  - Panday, Rishi Nannan
AU  - Oriji, Sunday O
AU  - Fox, Tatiana Erlikh
AU  - Faint, Victoria
AU  - Car, Josip
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022/12/6
TI  - Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study
JO  - J Med Internet Res
SP  - e41889
VL  - 24
IS  - 12
KW  - information quality
KW  - digital health technology
KW  - patient safety
KW  - perspective
KW  - digital health technologies
KW  - DHT
KW  - thematic analysis
KW  - clarity
KW  - understandable
KW  - understandability
KW  - readability
KW  - searchability
KW  - security
KW  - decision support system
KW  - framework development
KW  - framework
AB  - 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 
SN  - 1438-8871
UR  - https://www.jmir.org/2022/12/e41889
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2196/41889
UR  - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36472901
DO  - 10.2196/41889
ID  - info:doi/10.2196/41889
ER  -