Structured chart review: Assessment of a structured chart review methodology

Ashley Siems, Russell Banks, Richard Holubkov, Kathleen L. Meert, Christian Bauerfeld, David Beyda, Robert A. Berg, Yonca Bulut, Randall S. Burd, Joseph Carcillo, J. Michael Dean, Eleanor Gradidge, Mark W. Hall, Patrick S. McQuillen, Peter M. Mourani, Christopher J.L. Newth, Daniel A. Notterman, Margaret A. Priestley, Anil Sapru, David L. WesselAndrew R. Yates, Athena F. Zuppa, Murray M. Pollack

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chart reviews are frequently used for research, care assessments, and quality improvement activities despite an absence of data on reliability and validity. We aim to describe a structured chart review methodology and to establish its validity and reliability. METHODS: A generalizable structured chart review methodology was designed to evaluate causes of morbidity or mortality and to identify potential therapeutic advances. The review process consisted of a 2-tiered approach with a primary review completed by a site physician and a short secondary review completed by a central physician. A total of 327 randomly selected cases of known mortality or new morbidities were reviewed. Validity was assessed by using postreview surveys with a Likert scale. Reliability was assessed by percent agreement and interrater reliability. RESULTS: The primary reviewers agreed or strongly agreed in 94.9% of reviews that the information to form a conclusion about pathophysiological processes and therapeutic advances could be adequately found. They agreed or strongly agreed in 93.2% of the reviews that conclusions were easy to make, and confidence in the process was 94.2%. Secondary reviewers made modifications to 36.6% of cases. Duplicate reviews (n 5 41) revealed excellent percent agreement for the causes (80.5%–100%) and therapeutic advances (68.3%–100%). k statistics were strong for the pathophysiological categories but weaker for the therapeutic categories. CONCLUSIONS: A structured chart review by knowledgeable primary reviewers, followed by a brief secondary review, can be valid and reliable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)61-69
Number of pages9
JournalHospital pediatrics
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics
  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Structured chart review: Assessment of a structured chart review methodology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this