Developing routinely recorded clinical data from electronic patient records as a national resource to improve neonatal health care: the Medicines for Neonates research programme

Q4 Medicine
N. Modi, D. Ashby, C. Battersby, P. Brocklehurst, Z. Chivers, K. Costeloe, E. Draper, Victoria Foster, J. Kemp, A. Majeed, J. Murray, S. Petrou, K. Rogers, S. Santhakumaran, S. Saxena, Y. Statnikov, H. Wong, A. Young
{"title":"Developing routinely recorded clinical data from electronic patient records as a national resource to improve neonatal health care: the Medicines for Neonates research programme","authors":"N. Modi, D. Ashby, C. Battersby, P. Brocklehurst, Z. Chivers, K. Costeloe, E. Draper, Victoria Foster, J. Kemp, A. Majeed, J. Murray, S. Petrou, K. Rogers, S. Santhakumaran, S. Saxena, Y. Statnikov, H. Wong, A. Young","doi":"10.3310/pgfar07060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Clinical data offer the potential to advance patient care. Neonatal specialised care is a high-cost NHS service received by approximately 80,000 newborn infants each year.\n \n \n \n (1) To develop the use of routinely recorded operational clinical data from electronic patient records (EPRs), secure national coverage, evaluate and improve the quality of clinical data, and develop their use as a national resource to improve neonatal health care and outcomes. To test the hypotheses that (2) clinical and research data are of comparable quality, (3) routine NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years reliably identifies children with neurodevelopmental impairment and (4) trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be reliably conducted using clinical data. (5) To test methods to link NHS data sets and (6) to evaluate parent views of personal data in research.\n \n \n \n Six inter-related workstreams; quarterly extractions of predefined data from neonatal EPRs; and approvals from the National Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group, Caldicott Guardians and lead neonatal clinicians of participating NHS trusts.\n \n \n \n NHS neonatal units.\n \n \n \n Neonatal clinical teams; parents of babies admitted to NHS neonatal units.\n \n \n \n In workstream 3, we employed the Bayley-III scales to evaluate neurodevelopmental status and the Quantitative Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) to evaluate social communication skills. In workstream 6, we recruited parents with previous experience of a child in neonatal care to assist in the design of a questionnaire directed at the parents of infants admitted to neonatal units.\n \n \n \n Data were extracted from the EPR of admissions to NHS neonatal units.\n \n \n \n We created a National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) containing a defined extract from real-time, point-of-care, clinician-entered EPRs from all NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland (n = 200), established a UK Neonatal Collaborative of all NHS trusts providing neonatal specialised care, and created a new NHS information standard: the Neonatal Data Set (ISB 1595) (see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1595/amd-32–2012/index_html; accessed 25 June 2018).\n \n \n \n We found low discordance between clinical (NNRD) and research data for most important infant and maternal characteristics, and higher prevalence of clinical outcomes. Compared with research assessments, NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years has lower sensitivity but higher specificity for identifying children with neurodevelopmental impairment. Completeness and quality are higher for clinical than for administrative NHS data; linkage is feasible and substantially enhances data quality and scope. The majority of hospital resource inputs for economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be extracted reliably from the NNRD. In general, there is strong parent support for sharing routine clinical data for research purposes.\n \n \n \n We were only able to include data from all English neonatal units from 2012 onwards and conduct only limited cross validation of NNRD data directly against data in paper case notes. We were unable to conduct qualitative analyses of parent perspectives. We were also only able to assess the utility of trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions using a single trial. We suggest that results should be validated against other trials.\n \n \n \n We show that it is possible to obtain research-standard data from neonatal EPRs, and achieve complete population coverage, but we highlight the importance of implementing systematic examination of NHS data quality and completeness and testing methods to improve these measures. Currently available EPR data do not enable ascertainment of neurodevelopmental outcomes reliably in very preterm infants. Measures to maintain high quality and completeness of clinical and administrative data are important health service goals. As parent support for sharing clinical data for research is underpinned by strong altruistic motivation, improving wider public understanding of benefits may enhance informed decision-making.\n \n \n \n We aim to implement a new paradigm for newborn health care in which continuous incremental improvement is achieved efficiently and cost-effectively by close integration of evidence generation with clinical care through the use of high-quality EPR data. In future work, we aim to automate completeness and quality checks and make recording processes more ‘user friendly’ and constructed in ways that minimise the likelihood of missing or erroneous entries. The development of criteria that provide assurance that data conform to prespecified completeness and quality criteria would be an important development. The benefits of EPR data might be extended by testing their use in large pragmatic clinical trials. It would also be of value to develop methods to quality assure EPR data including involving parents, and link the NNRD to other health, social care and educational data sets to facilitate the acquisition of lifelong outcomes across multiple domains.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017439 (workstream 1) and PROSPERO CRD42012002168 (workstream 3).\n \n \n \n The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (£1,641,471). Unrestricted donations were supplied by Abbott Laboratories (Maidenhead, UK: £35,000), Nutricia Research Foundation (Schiphol, the Netherlands: £15,000), GE Healthcare (Amersham, UK: £1000). A grant to support the use of routinely collected, standardised, electronic clinical data for audit, management and multidisciplinary feedback in neonatal medicine was received from the Department of Health and Social Care (£135,494).\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar07060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Clinical data offer the potential to advance patient care. Neonatal specialised care is a high-cost NHS service received by approximately 80,000 newborn infants each year. (1) To develop the use of routinely recorded operational clinical data from electronic patient records (EPRs), secure national coverage, evaluate and improve the quality of clinical data, and develop their use as a national resource to improve neonatal health care and outcomes. To test the hypotheses that (2) clinical and research data are of comparable quality, (3) routine NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years reliably identifies children with neurodevelopmental impairment and (4) trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be reliably conducted using clinical data. (5) To test methods to link NHS data sets and (6) to evaluate parent views of personal data in research. Six inter-related workstreams; quarterly extractions of predefined data from neonatal EPRs; and approvals from the National Research Ethics Service, Health Research Authority Confidentiality Advisory Group, Caldicott Guardians and lead neonatal clinicians of participating NHS trusts. NHS neonatal units. Neonatal clinical teams; parents of babies admitted to NHS neonatal units. In workstream 3, we employed the Bayley-III scales to evaluate neurodevelopmental status and the Quantitative Checklist of Autism in Toddlers (Q-CHAT) to evaluate social communication skills. In workstream 6, we recruited parents with previous experience of a child in neonatal care to assist in the design of a questionnaire directed at the parents of infants admitted to neonatal units. Data were extracted from the EPR of admissions to NHS neonatal units. We created a National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) containing a defined extract from real-time, point-of-care, clinician-entered EPRs from all NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland (n = 200), established a UK Neonatal Collaborative of all NHS trusts providing neonatal specialised care, and created a new NHS information standard: the Neonatal Data Set (ISB 1595) (see http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1595/amd-32–2012/index_html; accessed 25 June 2018). We found low discordance between clinical (NNRD) and research data for most important infant and maternal characteristics, and higher prevalence of clinical outcomes. Compared with research assessments, NHS clinical assessment at the age of 2 years has lower sensitivity but higher specificity for identifying children with neurodevelopmental impairment. Completeness and quality are higher for clinical than for administrative NHS data; linkage is feasible and substantially enhances data quality and scope. The majority of hospital resource inputs for economic evaluations of neonatal interventions can be extracted reliably from the NNRD. In general, there is strong parent support for sharing routine clinical data for research purposes. We were only able to include data from all English neonatal units from 2012 onwards and conduct only limited cross validation of NNRD data directly against data in paper case notes. We were unable to conduct qualitative analyses of parent perspectives. We were also only able to assess the utility of trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions using a single trial. We suggest that results should be validated against other trials. We show that it is possible to obtain research-standard data from neonatal EPRs, and achieve complete population coverage, but we highlight the importance of implementing systematic examination of NHS data quality and completeness and testing methods to improve these measures. Currently available EPR data do not enable ascertainment of neurodevelopmental outcomes reliably in very preterm infants. Measures to maintain high quality and completeness of clinical and administrative data are important health service goals. As parent support for sharing clinical data for research is underpinned by strong altruistic motivation, improving wider public understanding of benefits may enhance informed decision-making. We aim to implement a new paradigm for newborn health care in which continuous incremental improvement is achieved efficiently and cost-effectively by close integration of evidence generation with clinical care through the use of high-quality EPR data. In future work, we aim to automate completeness and quality checks and make recording processes more ‘user friendly’ and constructed in ways that minimise the likelihood of missing or erroneous entries. The development of criteria that provide assurance that data conform to prespecified completeness and quality criteria would be an important development. The benefits of EPR data might be extended by testing their use in large pragmatic clinical trials. It would also be of value to develop methods to quality assure EPR data including involving parents, and link the NNRD to other health, social care and educational data sets to facilitate the acquisition of lifelong outcomes across multiple domains. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017439 (workstream 1) and PROSPERO CRD42012002168 (workstream 3). The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (£1,641,471). Unrestricted donations were supplied by Abbott Laboratories (Maidenhead, UK: £35,000), Nutricia Research Foundation (Schiphol, the Netherlands: £15,000), GE Healthcare (Amersham, UK: £1000). A grant to support the use of routinely collected, standardised, electronic clinical data for audit, management and multidisciplinary feedback in neonatal medicine was received from the Department of Health and Social Care (£135,494).
从电子病历中发展常规记录的临床数据,作为改善新生儿保健的国家资源:新生儿药物研究方案
临床数据提供了推进患者护理的潜力。新生儿专科护理是NHS的一项高费用服务,每年约有8万名新生儿接受这项服务。(1)开发利用电子病历(epr)中常规记录的业务临床数据,确保全国覆盖,评估和提高临床数据的质量,并将其作为一种国家资源加以利用,以改善新生儿保健和结果。为了验证以下假设:(2)临床和研究数据质量相当,(3)2岁时的常规NHS临床评估可靠地识别出患有神经发育障碍的儿童,(4)基于试验的新生儿干预经济评估可以可靠地使用临床数据进行。(5)测试连接NHS数据集的方法;(6)评估父母对研究中个人数据的看法。六个相互关联的工作流程;每季度从新生儿epr中提取预定义数据;并获得国家研究伦理服务中心、卫生研究机构保密咨询小组、Caldicott监护人和参与NHS信托的主要新生儿临床医生的批准。NHS新生儿病房。新生儿临床小组;NHS新生儿病房收治婴儿的父母。在工作流程3中,我们使用Bayley-III量表评估神经发育状况,并使用Q-CHAT量表评估幼儿自闭症的社会沟通能力。在工作流程6中,我们招募了有新生儿护理经验的父母,以协助设计针对新生儿病房收治婴儿父母的问卷。数据来自NHS新生儿病房入院的EPR。我们创建了一个国家新生儿研究数据库(NNRD),其中包含来自英格兰、威尔士和苏格兰所有NHS新生儿单位(n = 200)的实时、护理点、临床医生输入epr的定义提取,建立了一个由所有NHS信托机构提供新生儿专科护理的英国新生儿协作,并创建了一个新的NHS信息标准:新生儿数据集(ISB 1595)(见http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/±/http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-1595/amd-32 -2012 /index_html;查阅2018年6月25日)。我们发现临床(NNRD)和研究数据在大多数重要的婴儿和母亲特征之间的不一致性较低,并且临床结果的患病率较高。与研究评估相比,2岁时的NHS临床评估对识别神经发育障碍儿童的敏感性较低,但特异性较高。临床数据的完整性和质量高于行政数据;链接是可行的,并且大大提高了数据质量和范围。大多数用于新生儿干预经济评估的医院资源投入可以可靠地从NNRD中提取。一般来说,家长强烈支持为研究目的共享常规临床数据。我们只能纳入2012年以来所有英国新生儿单位的数据,并且仅对NNRD数据直接与纸质病例记录中的数据进行了有限的交叉验证。我们无法对父母的观点进行定性分析。我们也只能通过单一试验来评估基于试验的新生儿干预经济评估的效用。我们建议将结果与其他试验进行验证。我们表明,从新生儿epr中获得研究标准数据是可能的,并实现完全的人口覆盖,但我们强调了对NHS数据质量和完整性进行系统检查的重要性,以及改进这些措施的测试方法。目前可用的EPR数据不能可靠地确定极早产儿的神经发育结局。保持临床和管理数据的高质量和完整性的措施是重要的卫生服务目标。由于父母对共享临床数据的支持是基于强烈的利他动机,因此提高公众对利益的广泛理解可能会增强知情决策。我们的目标是实施一种新的新生儿卫生保健模式,通过使用高质量的EPR数据,将证据生成与临床护理紧密结合起来,从而有效和经济地实现持续的增量改进。在未来的工作中,我们的目标是自动化完整性和质量检查,使记录过程更加“用户友好”,并以最小化丢失或错误条目的可能性的方式构建。制定保证数据符合预先规定的完整性和质量标准的标准将是一项重要的发展。通过在大型实用临床试验中测试EPR数据的使用,可以扩大EPR数据的益处。 制定方法以保证质量,包括让父母参与,并将《国家人口发展报告》与其他保健、社会保健和教育数据集联系起来,以促进获得跨多个领域的终身成果,也将是有价值的。本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42015017439(工作流程1)和PROSPERO CRD42012002168(工作流程3)。国家卫生研究所应用研究计划拨款(1,641,471英镑)。无限制捐赠由雅培实验室(英国梅登黑德:35,000英镑)、纽迪西亚研究基金会(荷兰史基浦:15,000英镑)、通用电气医疗集团(英国阿默舍姆:1000英镑)提供。卫生和社会保障部提供了一笔赠款,用于支持将常规收集的标准化电子临床数据用于新生儿医学的审计、管理和多学科反馈(135,494英镑)。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信