What is a key consideration when combining multiple data sources (EHR, claims, PROs) for quality reporting?

• A. It requires no reconciliation; single source suffices.
• B. It can complicate data collection; focusing on a single source ensures consistency.
• C. It can improve validity but adds complexity and requires reconciliation of differences in definitions and timing.
• D. It should only be used for administrative purposes.

Answer: (C)

Combining multiple data sources for quality reporting can strengthen the validity of measures because each source captures different aspects of care: the EHR provides detailed clinical information, claims reflect utilization and costs, and patient-reported outcomes offer the patient’s perspective on results. This broader view helps validate whether a metric truly reflects quality across what was done, what was billed, and how the patient actually experienced care. However, this approach brings real complexity. The sources use different definitions for events (for example, what counts as a complication or a readmission), they record timing differently, and they may cover different patient populations or time windows. To make sense of the combined data, you must reconcile these differences—align metric definitions, map data to common vocabularies, agree on timing windows, and resolve conflicts when sources disagree. Governance and data quality checks are also essential to ensure the reconciled data are reliable for reporting. That’s why this concept is best described as improving validity while adding complexity and requiring reconciliation of definitions and timing.

Using a single source can seem simpler but risks missing important information and may bias results; relying on one source for consistency ignores the benefits of a more complete, multi-source view. Limiting use to administrative purposes misses the broader quality-improvement value of incorporating clinical detail and patient perspectives.