Margaret A French, Paul Hartman, Heather A Hayes, Leah Ling, John Magel, Anne Thackeray
{"title":"Coverage of physical therapy assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model common data model.","authors":"Margaret A French, Paul Hartman, Heather A Hayes, Leah Ling, John Magel, Anne Thackeray","doi":"10.1055/a-2401-3688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2401-3688","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.
Objective: Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.
Methods: After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.
Results: Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).
Conclusions: The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.
期刊介绍:
ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.