article · PLOS Global Public Health
This study investigated the quality of clinical notes for prostate cancer patients in five tertiary hospitals in Tanzania between January and December 2022. Using a mixed-method approach, patient information was extracted from both electronic and manual notes, and 25 healthcare providers were interviewed. The research found that while overall data accuracy was high at 99.4%, documentation of crucial variables like clinical stage (70.0%) and Gleason score (61.4%) was low. Key challenges identified included a lack of data quality knowledge, poor data integration, human resource shortages, insufficient supervision, and the coexistence of electronic and manual record systems. The Health Information Management System and hospital-based cancer registries were also not integrated. Improving clinical note quality requires collaborative efforts, structural reforms, and capacity building for personnel.
Poor data quality in patient records can lead to inefficient healthcare, delayed treatment, and compromised patient outcomes, especially for serious conditions like prostate cancer. This research highlights specific issues within Tanzanian health systems, providing crucial insights into where improvements are needed to enhance patient care and overall health service effectiveness.
This research identifies critical gaps in data quality within prostate cancer management, suggesting a need for improved health information management systems, better integration between electronic and manual records, and enhanced training for healthcare providers. While early-stage, these findings could inform the development of targeted training programmes, data quality audit tools, or integrated health record software designed for low-resource settings to improve patient data capture and utilisation.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Data quality in clinical notes is crucial for providing quality prostate cancer services, especially in countries with weak health systems and a growing burden of non-communicable diseases like prostate cancer. Poor data quality can lead to inefficient services, delayed treatment, and compromised patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the quality of clinical notes for prostate cancer patients treated at five tertiary hospitals in Tanzania from January to December 2022. A sequential mixed-method approach was employed, combining quantitative and qualitative data collection. Patients' level information from electronic and manual clinical notes were extracted and reviewed. In-depth interviews were conducted among 25 healthcare providers to explore data quality challenges in clinical notes. Quantitative data analysis used descriptive analysis via SPSS 27 software to determine data completeness and accuracy. In-depth interviews were conducted among 25 healthcare providers to explore data quality challenges. Qualitative data analysis utilized thematic analysis with hybrid inductive and deductive reasoning via NVivo 14 software. Clinical notes for prostate cancer management had poor quality. While the overall accuracy of documented variables was high at 1,494 (99.4%), documentation of key clinical variables was low; specifically, the clinical stage was documented in only 1,052 (70.0%) clinical notes, and the Gleason score in 923 (61.4%). Age, clinical presentation, and type of treatment showed high completeness. Themes established included lack of knowledge on data quality, poor integration of data, shortage of human resources for health, lack of supervision and the coexistence of electronic and manual record systems. The Health Information Management System and hospital-based cancer registries were not integrated. Documentation rates for clinical stage and Gleason score in the clinical notes of patients with prostate cancer were low in Tanzania. Improving the quality of clinical notes requires collaborative efforts among stakeholders focusing on structural reforms and capacity building of personnel.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0005579
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
