Search

Objective We identified challenges and solutions to using electronic health record (EHR) systems for the design and conduct of pragmatic research. Materials and Methods Since 2012, the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has served as the resource coordinating center for 21 pragmatic clinical trial demonstration projects. The EHR Core working group invited these demonstration projects to complete a written semistructured survey and used an inductive approach to review responses and identify EHR-related challenges and suggested EHR enhancements. Results We received survey responses from 20 projects and identified 21 challenges that fell into 6 broad themes: (1) inadequate collection of patient-reported outcome data, (2) lack of structured data collection, (3) data standardization, (4) resources to support customization of EHRs, (5) difficulties aggregating data across sites, and (6) accessing EHR data. Discussion Based on these findings, we formulated 6 prerequisites for PCTs that would enable the conduct of pragmatic research: (1) integrate the collection of patient-centered data into EHR systems, (2) facilitate structured research data collection by leveraging standard EHR functions, usable interfaces, and standard workflows, (3) support the creation of high-quality research data by using standards, (4) ensure adequate IT staff to support embedded research, (5) create aggregate, multidata type resources for multisite trials, and (6) create re-usable and automated queries. Conclusion We are hopeful our collection of specific EHR challenges and research needs will drive health system leaders, policymakers, and EHR designers to support these suggestions to improve our national capacity for generating real-world evidence.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze a publicly available sample of rule-based phenotype definitions to characterize and evaluate the variability of logical constructs used.Materials and MethodsA sample of 33 preexisting phenotype definitions used in research that are represented using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Clinical Quality Language (CQL) was analyzed using automated analysis of the computable representation of the CQL libraries.ResultsMost of the phenotype definitions include narrative descriptions and flowcharts, while few provide pseudocode or executable artifacts. Most use 4 or fewer medical terminologies. The number of codes used ranges from 5 to 6865, and value sets from 1 to 19. We found that the most common expressions used were literal, data, and logical expressions. Aggregate and arithmetic expressions are the least common. Expression depth ranges from 4 to 27.DiscussionDespite the range of conditions, we found that all of the phenotype definitions consisted of logical criteria, representing both clinical and operational logic, and tabular data, consisting of codes from standard terminologies and keywords for natural language processing. The total number and variety of expressions are low, which may be to simplify implementation, or authors may limit complexity due to data availability constraints.ConclusionsThe phenotype definitions analyzed show significant variation in specific logical, arithmetic, and other operators but are all composed of the same high-level components, namely tabular data and logical expressions. A standard representation for phenotype definitions should support these formats and be modular to support localization and shared logic.

Introduction Research and continuous quality improvement in pediatric rehabilitation settings require standardized data and a systematic approach to use these data. Methods We systematically examined pediatric data concepts from a pediatric learning network to determine capacity for capturing gross motor function (GMF) for children with Cerebral Palsy (CP) as a demonstration for enabling infrastructure for research and quality improvement activities of an LHS. We used an iterative approach to construct phenotype models of GMF from standardized data element concepts based on case definitions from the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS). Data concepts were selected using a theory and expert‐informed process and resulted in the construction of four phenotype models of GMF: an overall model and three classes corresponding to deviations in GMF for CP populations. Results Sixty five data element concepts were identified for the overall GMF phenotype model. The 65 data elements correspond to 20 variables and logic statements that instantiate membership into one of three clinically meaningful classes of GMF. Data element concepts and variables are organized into five domains relevant to modeling GMF: Neurologic Function, Mobility Performance, Activity Performance, Motor Performance, and Device Use. Conclusion Our experience provides an approach for organizations to leverage existing data for care improvement and research in other conditions. This is the first consensus‐based and theory‐driven specification of data elements and logic to support identification and labeling of GMF in patients for measuring improvements in care or the impact of new treatments. More research is needed to validate this phenotype model and the extent that these data differentiate between classes of GMF to support various LHS activities.

Background Data readiness is a concept often used when referring to health information technology applications in the informatics disciplines, but it is not clearly defined in the literature. To avoid misinterpretations in research and implementation, a formal definition should be developed. Objectives The objective of this research is to provide a conceptual definition and framework for the term data readiness that can be used to guide research and development related to data-based applications in health care. Methods PubMed, the National Institutes of Health RePORTER, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Duke University Library databases for business and information sciences were queried for formal mentions of the term “data readiness.” Manuscripts found in the search were reviewed, and relevant information was extracted, evaluated, and assimilated into a framework for data readiness. Results Of the 264 manuscripts found in the database searches, 20 were included in the final synthesis to define data readiness. In these 20 manuscripts, the term data readiness was revealed to encompass the constructs of data quality, data availability, interoperability, and data provenance. Discussion Based upon our review of the literature, we define data readiness as the application-specific intersection of data quality, data availability, interoperability, and data provenance. While these concepts are not new, the combination of these factors in a novel data readiness model may help guide future informatics research and implementation science. Conclusion This analysis provides a definition to guide research and development related to data-based applications in health care. Future work should be done to validate this definition, and to apply the components of data readiness to real-world applications so that specific metrics may be developed and disseminated.

Objective To identify important barriers and facilitators relating to the feasibility of implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as clinical decision support (CDS). Materials and Methods We conducted a qualitative, thematic analysis of interviews from seven interviews with dyads (one clinical expert and one systems analyst) who discussed the feasibility of implementing 10 Choosing Wisely® guidelines at their institutions. We conducted a content analysis to extract salient themes describing facilitators, challenges, and other feasibility considerations regarding implementing CPGs as CDS. Results We identified five themes: concern about data quality impacts implementation planning; the availability of data in a computable format is a primary factor for implementation feasibility; customized strategies are needed to mitigate uncertainty and ambiguity when translating CPGs to an electronic health record-based tool; misalignment of expected CDS with pre-existing clinical workflows impact implementation; and individual level factors of end-users must be considered when selecting and implementing CDS tools. Discussion The themes reveal several considerations for CPG as CDS implementations regarding data quality, knowledge representation, and sociotechnical issues. Guideline authors should be aware that using CDS to implement CPGs is becoming increasingly popular and should consider providing clear guidelines to aid implementation. The complex nature of CPG as CDS implementation necessitates a unified effort to overcome these challenges. Conclusion Our analysis highlights the importance of cooperation and co-development of standards, strategies, and infrastructure to address the difficulties of implementing CPGs as CDS. The complex interactions between the concepts revealed in the interviews necessitates the need that such work should not be conducted in silos. We also implore that implementers disseminate their experiences.

The volume of biomedical knowledge is growing exponentially and much of this knowledge is represented in computer executable formats, such as models, algorithms, and programmatic code. There is a growing need to apply this knowledge to improve health in Learning Health Systems, health delivery organizations, and other settings. However, most organizations do not yet have the infrastructure required to consume and apply computable knowledge, and national policies and standards adoption are not sufficient to ensure that it is discoverable and used safely and fairly, nor is there widespread experience in the process of knowledge implementation as clinical decision support. The Mobilizing Computable Biomedical Knowledge (MCBK) community was formed in 2016 to address these needs. This report summarizes the main outputs of the third annual MCBK public meeting, which was held virtually from June 30 to July 1, 2020 and brought together over 200 participants from various domains to frame and address important dimensions for mobilizing CBK.

Background High-quality phenotype definitions are desirable to enable the extraction of patient cohorts from large electronic health record repositories and are characterized by properties such as portability, reproducibility, and validity. Phenotype libraries, where definitions are stored, have the potential to contribute significantly to the quality of the definitions they host. In this work, we present a set of desiderata for the design of a next-generation phenotype library that is able to ensure the quality of hosted definitions by combining the functionality currently offered by disparate tooling. Methods A group of researchers examined work to date on phenotype models, implementation, and validation, as well as contemporary phenotype libraries developed as a part of their own phenomics communities. Existing phenotype frameworks were also examined. This work was translated and refined by all the authors into a set of best practices. Results We present 14 library desiderata that promote high-quality phenotype definitions, in the areas of modelling, logging, validation, and sharing and warehousing. Conclusions There are a number of choices to be made when constructing phenotype libraries. Our considerations distil the best practices in the field and include pointers towards their further development to support portable, reproducible, and clinically valid phenotype design. The provision of high-quality phenotype definitions enables electronic health record data to be more effectively used in medical domains.

Learning health systems that conduct embedded research require infrastructure for the seamless adoption of clinical interventions; this infrastructure should integrate with electronic health record (EHR) systems and enable the use of existing data. As purchasers of EHR systems, and as critical partners, sponsors, and consumers of embedded research, healthcare organizations should advocate for EHR system functionality and data standards that will increase the capacity for embedded research in clinical settings. As stakeholders and proponents for EHR data standards, healthcare leaders should support standards development and promote local adoption to support quality healthcare, continuous improvement, innovative data-driven interventions, and the generation of new knowledge. “Standards-enabled” health systems will be positioned to address emergent and critical research questions, including those related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and future public health threats. The role of a data standards officer or champion could enable health systems to realize this goal.