Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
C. Polling, Alexander Tulloch, Subrata Banerjee, S. Cross, Rina Dutta, D. M. Wood, Paul I. Dargan, M. Hotopf
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 15 |
Number of pages | 8 |
Journal | Emergency Medicine |
Volume | 15 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Accepted/In press | 3 Jul 2015 |
Published | 16 Jul 2015 |
Additional links |
art_3A10.1186_2Fs12873_015_0041_6
art_3A10.1186_2Fs12873_015_0041_6.pdf, 413 KB, application/pdf
Uploaded date:16 Feb 2016
Version:Final published version
Licence:CC BY
Background
Self-harm is a significant public health concern in the UK. This is reflected in the recent addition to the English Public Health Outcomes Framework of rates of attendance at Emergency Departments (EDs) following self-harm. However there is currently no source of data to measure this outcome. Routinely available data for inpatient admissions following self-harm miss the majority of cases presenting to services.
Methods
Using the Clinical Record Interactive Search system, the electronic health records (EHRs) used in four EDs were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics to create a dataset of attendances following self-harm. This dataset was compared with an audit dataset of ED attendances created by manual searching of ED records. The proportion of total cases detected by each dataset was compared.
Results
There were 1932 attendances detected by the EHR dataset and 1906 by the audit. The EHR and audit datasets detected 77 % and 76 % of all attendances respectively and both detected 82 % of individual patients. There were no differences in terms of age, sex, ethnicity or marital status between those detected and those missed using the EHR method. Both datasets revealed more than double the number of self-harm incidents than could be identified from inpatient admission records.
Conclusions
It was possible to use routinely collected EHR data to create a dataset of attendances at EDs following self-harm. The dataset detected the same proportion of attendances and individuals as the audit dataset, proved more comprehensive than the use of inpatient admission records, and did not show a systematic bias in those cases it missed.
King's College London - Homepage
© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454