AbstractObjective:To assess the time to achieve reliable reporting of electronic health record data compared with manual reporting during validation.Design:Secondary analysis of aggregate data for number of patients present, number of patients with a central venous catheter, and number of patients with an indwelling urinary catheter during validation of an electronic health record reporting tool.Setting:Mayo Clinic Health System in Wisconsin.Participants:Mayo Clinic infection prevention and control staff, unit champions, and all inpatients.Methods:We simultaneously collected electronic and manual counts of device data and compared discrepancies to determine their source. If manual data entry was incorrect, manual counts were coded as inaccurate. If electronically abstracted data did not reflect an accurate count, errors were attributed to the system. Data were compared using standard statistical methods.Results:Within 30 days after beginning validation of electronic reporting for central venous catheter days and urinary catheter days, electronic counts were durably more reliable than manual counts.Conclusions:Manual validation for capturing and reporting electronic data and reporting can be shorter than the 90 days currently mandated by National Healthcare Safety Network criteria. Compared with a longer validation period, a shorter validation period may yield substantial savings while achieving the same validity.