A comparison of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Observational Medical Mutcomes Partnership electronic health record data within the All of Us Research Program.

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Jason Patterson, Elise Minto, Maura Beaton, Adit Anand, Mark Velez, Paul Harris, George Hripcsak, Karthik Natarajan
{"title":"A comparison of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Observational Medical Mutcomes Partnership electronic health record data within the All of Us Research Program.","authors":"Jason Patterson, Elise Minto, Maura Beaton, Adit Anand, Mark Velez, Paul Harris, George Hripcsak, Karthik Natarajan","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocag095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study compares the contents of two data standards; the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), highlighting their strength and weaknesses and serve as an initial step toward understanding how each standard supports secondary data analysis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Participant electronic health record data in both OMOP and FHIR formats from the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) were compared, including codeable event volume, healthcare encounters, and person timelines. A phenotype-based assessment was also conducted using Type-II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 29 512 participants identified with overlapping FHIR and OMOP data, Median codeable event counts were comparable between FHIR and OMOP within the Measurement (OMOP = 846; FHIR = 832), Drug (OMOP = 92; FHIR = 90), and Observation (OMOP = 65; FHIR = 100) domains, but were higher in OMOP within the Condition (OMOP = 258; FHIR = 11) and Procedure (OMOP = 72; FHIR = 4) domains. Within the T2DM cohort, OMOP contained more data, except for medications. Very few participants had encounters in FHIR (1.5%) relative to OMOP (97.0%). On average, only 15.9% of visit dates overlapped in both standards, with most visit dates occurring only in OMOP (65.3%) or only FHIR (18.4%).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Data in OMOP showed a higher volume of observation and procedure codeable events, reported encounters, and T2DM symptoms, complications, and comorbidities. FHIR data was able to capture data across multiple providers and health systems.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on AoURP data, both standards were shown to support healthcare data capture, although OMOP shows greater utility for research purposes as its extract, transform, and load process enables more flexible data capture relative to extracting data from FHIR payloads. FHIR, however, captures patient-level data from beyond the health system and can thus be used to supplement OMOP.</p>","PeriodicalId":50016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","volume":" ","pages":"1593-1604"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13580739/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocag095","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study compares the contents of two data standards; the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), highlighting their strength and weaknesses and serve as an initial step toward understanding how each standard supports secondary data analysis.

Materials and methods: Participant electronic health record data in both OMOP and FHIR formats from the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) were compared, including codeable event volume, healthcare encounters, and person timelines. A phenotype-based assessment was also conducted using Type-II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).

Results: Among 29 512 participants identified with overlapping FHIR and OMOP data, Median codeable event counts were comparable between FHIR and OMOP within the Measurement (OMOP = 846; FHIR = 832), Drug (OMOP = 92; FHIR = 90), and Observation (OMOP = 65; FHIR = 100) domains, but were higher in OMOP within the Condition (OMOP = 258; FHIR = 11) and Procedure (OMOP = 72; FHIR = 4) domains. Within the T2DM cohort, OMOP contained more data, except for medications. Very few participants had encounters in FHIR (1.5%) relative to OMOP (97.0%). On average, only 15.9% of visit dates overlapped in both standards, with most visit dates occurring only in OMOP (65.3%) or only FHIR (18.4%).

Discussion: Data in OMOP showed a higher volume of observation and procedure codeable events, reported encounters, and T2DM symptoms, complications, and comorbidities. FHIR data was able to capture data across multiple providers and health systems.

Conclusion: Based on AoURP data, both standards were shown to support healthcare data capture, although OMOP shows greater utility for research purposes as its extract, transform, and load process enables more flexible data capture relative to extracting data from FHIR payloads. FHIR, however, captures patient-level data from beyond the health system and can thus be used to supplement OMOP.

“我们所有人”研究计划中快速医疗互操作性资源和观察性医疗Mutcomes伙伴关系电子健康记录数据的比较。
目的:比较两种数据标准的内容;观察性医疗结果合作伙伴关系(OMOP)和快速医疗互操作性资源(FHIR),强调了它们的优点和缺点,并作为了解每种标准如何支持辅助数据分析的第一步。材料和方法:比较来自我们所有人研究计划(AoURP)的OMOP和FHIR格式的参与者电子健康记录数据,包括可编码的事件量、医疗保健遭遇和个人时间线。对2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者也进行了基于表型的评估。结果:在29 512名FHIR和OMOP数据重叠的参与者中,FHIR和OMOP在测量(OMOP = 846; FHIR = 832)、药物(OMOP = 92; FHIR = 90)和观察(OMOP = 65; FHIR = 100)域的中位可编码事件数具有可比性,但在条件(OMOP = 258; FHIR = 11)和过程(OMOP = 72; FHIR = 4)域的中位可编码事件数较高。在T2DM队列中,OMOP包含了更多的数据,除了药物。相对于OMOP(97.0%),很少有参与者遭遇FHIR(1.5%)。平均而言,只有15.9%的访问日期在两种标准中重叠,大多数访问日期仅发生在OMOP(65.3%)或FHIR(18.4%)。讨论:OMOP的数据显示,观察和程序可编码的事件、报告的遭遇、T2DM症状、并发症和合并症的数量更高。FHIR数据能够获取跨多个提供者和卫生系统的数据。结论:基于AoURP数据,这两个标准都支持医疗保健数据捕获,尽管OMOP在研究目的方面显示出更大的实用性,因为相对于从FHIR有效负载中提取数据,OMOP的提取、转换和加载过程支持更灵活的数据捕获。然而,FHIR从卫生系统之外获取患者层面的数据,因此可用于补充OMOP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
7.80%
发文量
230
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMIA is AMIA''s premier peer-reviewed journal for biomedical and health informatics. Covering the full spectrum of activities in the field, JAMIA includes informatics articles in the areas of clinical care, clinical research, translational science, implementation science, imaging, education, consumer health, public health, and policy. JAMIA''s articles describe innovative informatics research and systems that help to advance biomedical science and to promote health. Case reports, perspectives and reviews also help readers stay connected with the most important informatics developments in implementation, policy and education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书