Man Versus Machine: Comparing Double Data Entry and Optical Mark Recognition for Processing CAHPS Survey Data
Man Versus Machine: Comparing Double Data Entry and Optical Mark Recognition for Processing CAHPS Survey Data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/qmh.0000000000000138
复制
发表时间：
2017-07-01
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Rucks, Andrew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fifolt, Matthew;Blackburn, Justin;Rucks, Andrew
目的：历史上，双数据输入（DDE）一直被认为是减少数据输入错误的标准。然而，以前的研究通过有限的数据准确性来考虑数据输入的替代方案。本研究为DDE和光学标记识别（OMR）处理消费者医疗保健提供者评估和系统5.0调查提供了有关数据准确性、操作效率和成本的信息。方法：为了评估数据的准确性，我们比较了DDE和OMR的错误率，方法是将仲裁的调查数量除以每种方法处理的调查总数。为了评估操作效率，我们在收到调查报告后计算了DDE和OMR的数据输入成本。成本是根据人员、资本设备折旧和非资本设备成本计算的。结果：该方法的成本节约被OMR的操作效率所抵消。DDE与OMR的仲裁率差异有统计学意义；然而，这种统计上的显著性并没有产生实际意义。结论：DDE在数据准确性方面的潜在收益并未超过OMR的操作效率，从而节省了资金。
Objective: Historically, double data entry (DDE) has been considered the criterion standard for minimizing data entry errors. However, previous studies considered data entry alternatives through the limited lens of data accuracy. This study supplies information regarding data accuracy, operational efficiency, and cost for DDE and Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) for processing the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 5.0 survey.Methods: To assess data accuracy, we compared error rates for DDE and OMR by dividing the number of surveys that were arbitrated by the total number of surveys processed for each method. To assess operational efficiency, we tallied the cost of data entry for DDE and OMR after survey receipt. Costs were calculated on the basis of personnel, depreciation for capital equipment, and costs of noncapital equipment.Results: The cost savings attributed to this method were negated by the operational efficiency of OMR. There was a statistical significance between rates of arbitration between DDE and OMR; however, this statistical significance did not create a practical significance.Conclusions: The potential benefits of DDE in terms of data accuracy did not outweigh the operational efficiency and thereby financial savings of OMR.