Major Themes From Evaluation Results
・ I do remember thinking that it was a reasonable amount of time.
・ He sent the numbers, which is what I wanted.
・ It was a really quick turn-around.
・ About two-week turn-around. I was happy about. I submitted in Feb the link data, and it was another two-week turn-around or less from when I got the data back from the PM.
・ Since 2008, we haven’t been able to get any, so it’s secure it could possibly be.
・ I think improvement for internal data access would be really good
・ We’re still in process, we’re gotten some preliminary data from UDOH … still meeting regularly … complicated things, you have to go through various levels of inclusion/exclusion to get what you think would be most useful. We’ve made progress though
Applying APCD data to use case
・ The APCD could be used to check for control of the disease. We’re doing it in three different ways to see the outcomes, and how does it change.
・ It has the potential to be extremely useful and it’s exactly what we want to do.
・ It gave us data that we can’t get anywhere else … very helpful to get data at a granular level.
・ We saw a good matching rate in our records and APCD.
・ I would say that they completely fulfilled our request.
・ It allows us to apply the same measures from the controlled substance database to the APCD for data quality measures.
Utility/value of APCD use
・ Small area is something that they have, they are good at
・ It gives us opportunity to compare rates of various surveillance system
・ It is a good place to start testing reliability of measures
・ It gave us data that we can’t get anywhere else
・ I used it for my SIM report to get the cost of diabetes per member
・ It did matter to me who was the most expensive … I had a high deductible … I wanted someone who was good reviewed, not crazy expertise … I think I used it twice … I compared the cost of those that took my insurance
・ It was great. It was really easy. I felt like it was easy to navigate.
・ There’s no standard recommended procedure [for attribution] … they are still new enough in the process of getting meaningful information out of the APCD that there are no standard methodologies
Quality of the data
・ It’s been more complete than what I anticipated
・ I don’t think I cleaned it or anything
・ From what I thought, it seemed good. In the past we’d get different data from the same people, but I trust them. The data quality was good, when I looked at the indicator, it was not surprising.
・ In terms of linkage data, we were really happy to see that the vast majority of terms were linked to full name, social and DOB, a big chunk of our linkages worked, was sufficient for our needs
・ I would say that it was good. Really good.
・ It seemed like their identifiers and deduplications were really good. There were very few instances where a patient linked to multiple records. The identifier information was very good.
・ The PM and I talked about a small group of identifiers that I was getting social and DOB but not the name. The PM then went back to the data and found out that one of the insurers that they were not submitting names.
・ I spoke to UDOH about a member ID over time … he has a solution for that now.