Structured Chart Review: Assessment of a Structured Chart Review Methodology.

TitleStructured Chart Review: Assessment of a Structured Chart Review Methodology.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2020
AuthorsSiems, A, Banks, R, Holubkov, R, Meert, KL, Bauerfeld, C, Beyda, D, Berg, RA, Bulut, Y, Burd, RS, Carcillo, J, J Dean, M, Gradidge, E, Hall, MW, McQuillen, PS, Mourani, PM, Newth, CJL, Notterman, DA, Priestley, MA, Sapru, A, Wessel, DL, Yates, AR, Zuppa, AF, Pollack, MM
JournalHosp Pediatr
Date Published2020 Jan



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.


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.


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 = 41) revealed excellent percent agreement for the causes (80.5%-100%) and therapeutic advances (68.3%-100%). κ statistics were strong for the pathophysiological categories but weaker for the therapeutic categories.


A structured chart review by knowledgeable primary reviewers, followed by a brief secondary review, can be valid and reliable.

Alternate JournalHosp Pediatr
PubMed ID31879317
PubMed Central IDPMC6931034