EGEMS (Washington, DC)最新文献

{"title":"Innovative Solutions for State Medicaid Programs to Leverage Their Data, Build Their Analytic Capacity, and Create Evidence-Based Policy","authors":"Lauren Adams, Susan A Kennedy, L. Allen, Andrew J Barnes, Tom Bias, D. Crane, P. Lanier, Rachel G. Mauk, Shamis Mohamoud, Nathan Pauly, J. Talbert, C. Woodcock, K. Zivin, J. Donohue","doi":"10.5334/egems.311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.311","url":null,"abstract":"As states have embraced additional flexibility to change coverage of and payment for Medicaid services, they have also faced heightened expectations for delivering high-value care. Efforts to meet these new expectations have increased the need for rigorous, evidence-based policy, but states may face challenges finding the resources, capacity, and expertise to meet this need. By describing state-university partnerships in more than 20 states, this commentary describes innovative solutions for states that want to leverage their own data, build their analytic capacity, and create evidence-based policy. From an integrated web-based system to improve long-term care to evaluating the impact of permanent supportive housing placements on Medicaid utilization and spending, these state partnerships provide significant support to their state Medicaid programs. In 2017, these partnerships came together to create a distributed research network that supports multi-state analyses. The Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network (MODRN) uses a common data model to examine Medicaid data across states, thereby increasing the analytic rigor of policy evaluations in Medicaid, and contributing to the development of a fully functioning Medicaid innovation laboratory.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43819438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Making Evidence Actionable: Interactive Dashboards, Bayes, and Health Care Innovation","authors":"Anupa Bir, Nikki L. B. Freeman, Robert F. Chew, Kevin W. Smith, James H Derzon, T. Day","doi":"10.5334/egems.300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.300","url":null,"abstract":"The results of many large-scale federal or multi-site evaluations are typically compiled into long reports which end up sitting on policymaker’s shelves. Moreover, the information policymakers need from these reports is often buried in the report, may not be remembered, understood, or readily accessible to the policymaker when it is needed. This is not a new challenge for evaluators, and advances in statistical methodology, while they have created greater opportunities for insight, may compound the challenge by creating multiple lenses through which evidence can be viewed. The descriptive evidence from traditional frequentist models, while familiar, are frequently misunderstood, while newer Bayesian methods provide evidence which is intuitive, but less familiar. These methods are complementary but presenting both increases the amount of evidence stakeholders and policymakers may find useful. In response to these challenges, we developed an interactive dashboard that synthesizes quantitative and qualitative data and allows users to access the evidence they want, when they want it, allowing each user a customized, and customizable view into the data collected for one large-scale federal evaluation. This offers the opportunity for policymakers to select the specifics that are most relevant to them at any moment, and also apply their own risk tolerance to the probabilities of various outcomes.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43003004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Improving a Secondary Use Health Data Warehouse: Proposing a Multi-Level Data Quality Framework","authors":"Sandra Henley-Smith, D. Boyle, K. Gray","doi":"10.5334/EGEMS.298","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/EGEMS.298","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Data quality frameworks within information technology and recently within health care have evolved considerably since their inception. When assessing data quality for secondary uses, an area not yet addressed adequately in these frameworks is the context of the intended use of the data. Methods: After review of literature to identify relevant research, an existing data quality framework was refined and expanded to encompass the contextual requirements not present. Results: The result is a two-level framework to address the need to maintain the intrinsic value of the data, as well as the need to indicate whether the data will be able to provide the basis for answers in specific areas of interest or questions. Discussion: Data quality frameworks have always been one dimensional, requiring the implementers of these frameworks to fit the requirements of the data’s use around how the framework is designed to function. Our work has systematically addressed the shortcomings of existing frameworks, through the application of concepts synthesized from the literature to the naturalistic setting of data quality management in an actual health data warehouse. Conclusion: Secondary use of health data relies on contextualized data quality management. Our work is innovative in showing how to apply context around data quality characteristics and how to develop a second level data quality framework, so as to ensure that quality and context are maintained and addressed throughout the health data quality assessment process.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47302237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Colonoscopy Indication Algorithm Performance Across Diverse Health Care Systems in the PROSPR Consortium.","authors":"Andrea N Burnett-Hartman, Aruna Kamineni, Douglas A Corley, Amit G Singal, Ethan A Halm, Carolyn M Rutter, Jessica Chubak, Jeffrey K Lee, Chyke A Doubeni, John M Inadomi, V Paul Doria-Rose, Yingye Zheng","doi":"10.5334/egems.296","DOIUrl":"10.5334/egems.296","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the importance of characterizing colonoscopy indication for quality monitoring and cancer screening program evaluation, there is no standard approach to documenting colonoscopy indication in medical records.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied two algorithms in three health care systems to assign colonoscopy indication to persons 50-89 years old who received a colonoscopy during 2010-2013. Both algorithms used standard procedure, diagnostic, and laboratory codes. One algorithm, the KPNC algorithm, used a hierarchical approach to classify exam indication into: diagnostic, surveillance, or screening; whereas the other, the SEARCH algorithm, used a logistic regression-based algorithm to provide the probability that colonoscopy was performed for screening. Gold standard assessment of indication was from medical records abstraction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1,796 colonoscopy exams included in analyses; age and racial/ethnic distributions of participants differed across health care systems. The KPNC algorithm's sensitivities and specificities for screening indication ranged from 0.78-0.82 and 0.78-0.91, respectively; sensitivities and specificities for diagnostic indication ranged from 0.78-0.89 and 0.74-0.82, respectively. The KPNC algorithm had poor sensitivities (ranging from 0.11-0.67) and high specificities for surveillance exams. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the SEARCH algorithm for screening indication ranged from 0.76-0.84 across health care systems. For screening indication, the KPNC algorithm obtained higher specificities than the SEARCH algorithm at the same sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite standardized implementation of these indication algorithms across three health care systems, the capture of colonoscopy indication data was imperfect. Thus, we recommend that standard, systematic documentation of colonoscopy indication should be added to medical records to ensure efficient and accurate data capture.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6676916/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47831656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding U.S. Health Systems: Using Mixed Methods to Unpack Organizational Complexity","authors":"M. Ridgely, E. Duffy, Laura J. Wolf, M. Vaiana, D. Scanlon, Christine Buttorff, Brigitt Leitzell, S. Ahluwalia, L. Hilton, D. Agniel, A. Haviland, C. Damberg","doi":"10.5334/EGEMS.302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/EGEMS.302","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: As hospitals and physician organizations increasingly vertically integrate, there is an important opportunity to use health systems to improve performance. Prior research has largely relied on secondary data sources, but little is known about how health systems are organized “on the ground” and what mechanisms are available to influence physician practice at the front line of care. Methods: We collected in-depth information on eight health systems through key informant interviews, descriptive surveys, and document review. Qualitative data were systematically coded. We conducted analyses to identify organizational structures and mechanisms through which health systems influence practice. Results: As expected, we found that health systems vary on multiple dimensions related to organizational structure (e.g., size, complexity) which reflects history, market and mission. With regard to levers of influence, we observed within-system variation both in mechanisms (e.g., employment of physicians, system-wide EHR, standardization of service lines) and level of influence. Concepts such as “core” versus “peripheral” were more salient than “ownership” versus “contract.” Discussion: Data from secondary sources can help identify and map health systems, but they do not adequately describe them or the variation that exists within and across systems. To examine the degree to which health systems can influence performance, more detailed and nuanced information on health system characteristics is necessary. Conclusion: The mixed-methods data accrual approach used in this study provides granular qualitative data that enables researchers to describe multi-layered health systems, grasp the context in which they operate, and identify the key drivers of performance.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48647409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clinical Workflow and Substance Use Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Data in the Electronic Health Records: A National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network Study","authors":"Li-Tzy Wu, Elizabeth H. Payne, Kimberly Roseman, Carla Kingsbury, Ashley Case, C. Nelson, R. Lindblad","doi":"10.5334/egems.293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.293","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The use of electronic health records (EHR) data in research to inform recruitment and outcomes is considered a critical element for pragmatic studies. However, there is a lack of research on the availability of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment data in the EHR to inform research. Methods: This study recruited providers who used an EHR for patient care and whose facilities were affiliated with the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (NIDA CTN). Data about providers’ use of an EHR and other methods to support and document clinical tasks for Substance use screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) were collected. Results: Participants (n = 26) were from facilities across the country (South 46.2%, West 23.1%, Midwest 19.2 percent, Northeast 11.5 percent), representing 26 different health systems/facilities at various settings: primary care (30.8 percent), ambulatory other/specialty (26.9 percent), mixed setting (11.5 percent), hospital outpatient (11.5 percent), emergency department (7.7 percent), inpatient (3.8 percent), and other (7.7 percent). Validated tools were rarely used for substance use screen and SUD assessment. Structured and unstructured EHR fields were commonly used to document SBIRT. The following tasks had high proportions of using unstructured EHR fields: substance use screen, treatment exploration, brief intervention, referral, and follow-up. Conclusion: This study is the first of its kind to investigate the documentation of SBIRT in the EHR outside of unique settings (e.g., Veterans Health Administration). While results are descriptive, they emphasize the importance of developing EHR features to collect structured data for SBIRT to improve health care quality evaluation and SUD research.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49305620","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Design and Refinement of a Data Quality Assessment Workflow for a Large Pediatric Research Network","authors":"Ritu Khare, Levon H. Utidjian, H. Razzaghi, Victoria Soucek, Evanette K. Burrows, D. Eckrich, Richard Hoyt, Harris Weinstein, Matthew Miller, David Soler, Joshua Tucker, L. C. Bailey","doi":"10.5334/EGEMS.294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/EGEMS.294","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Clinical data research networks (CDRNs) aggregate electronic health record data from multiple hospitals to enable large-scale research. A critical operation toward building a CDRN is conducting continual evaluations to optimize data quality. The key challenges include determining the assessment coverage on big datasets, handling data variability over time, and facilitating communication with data teams. This study presents the evolution of a systematic workflow for data quality assessment in CDRNs. Implementation: Using a specific CDRN as use case, the workflow was iteratively developed and packaged into a toolkit. The resultant toolkit comprises 685 data quality checks to identify any data quality issues, procedures to reconciliate with a history of known issues, and a contemporary GitHub-based reporting mechanism for organized tracking. Results: During the first two years of network development, the toolkit assisted in discovering over 800 data characteristics and resolving over 1400 programming errors. Longitudinal analysis indicated that the variability in time to resolution (15day mean, 24day IQR) is due to the underlying cause of the issue, perceived importance of the domain, and the complexity of assessment. Conclusions: In the absence of a formalized data quality framework, CDRNs continue to face challenges in data management and query fulfillment. The proposed data quality toolkit was empirically validated on a particular network, and is publicly available for other networks. While the toolkit is user-friendly and effective, the usage statistics indicated that the data quality process is very time-intensive and sufficient resources should be dedicated for investigating problems and optimizing data for research.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44291962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Using Electronic Medical Records to Identify Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Cases","authors":"Nikki L. B. Freeman, K. McGinigle, P. Leese","doi":"10.5334/egems.304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.304","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) aims to improve surgical outcomes by integrating evidence-based practices across preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. Data in electronic medical records (EMRs) provide insight on how ERAS is implemented and its impact on surgical outcomes. Because ERAS is a multimodal pathway provided by multiple physicians and health care providers over time, identifying ERAS cases in EMRs is not a trivial task. To better understand how EMRs can be used to study ERAS, we describe our experience with using current methodologies and the development and rationale of a new method for retrospectively identifying ERAS cases in EMRs. Case Description: Using EMR data from surgical departments at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we first identified ERAS cases using a protocol-based method, using basic information including the date of ERAS implementation, surgical procedure and date, and primary surgeon. We further examined two operational flags in the EMRs, a nursing order and a case request for OR order. Wide variation between the methods compelled us to consult with ERAS surgical staff and explore the EMRs to develop a more refined method for identifying ERAS cases. Method: We developed a two-step method, with the first step based on the protocol definition and the second step based on an ERAS-specific medication definition. To test our method, we randomly sampled 150 general, gynecological, and urologic surgeries performed between January 1, 2016 and March 30, 2017. Surgical cases were classified as ERAS or not using the protocol definition, nursing order, case request for OR order, and our two-step method. To assess the accuracy of each method, two independent reviewers assessed the charts to determine whether cases were ERAS. Findings: Of the 150 charts reviewed, 74 were ERAS cases. The protocol only method and nursing order flag performed similarly, correctly identifying 74 percent and 73 percent of true ERAS cases, respectively. The case request for OR order flag performed less well, correctly identifying only 44 percent of the true ERAS cases. Our two-step method performed well, correctly identifying 98 percent of true ERAS cases. Conclusion: ERAS pathways are complex, making study of them from EMRs difficult. Current strategies for doing so are relatively easy to implement, but unreliable. We have developed a reproducible and observable ERAS computational phenotype that identifies ERAS cases reliably. This is a step forward in using the richness of EMR data to study ERAS implementation, efficacy, and how they can contribute to surgical care improvement.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44886353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"DataGauge: A Practical Process for Systematically Designing and Implementing Quality Assessments of Repurposed Clinical Data.","authors":"Jose-Franck Diaz-Garelli, Elmer V Bernstam, MinJae Lee, Kevin O Hwang, Mohammad H Rahbar, Todd R Johnson","doi":"10.5334/egems.286","DOIUrl":"10.5334/egems.286","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The well-known hazards of repurposing data make Data Quality (DQ) assessment a vital step towards ensuring valid results regardless of analytical methods. However, there is no systematic process to implement DQ assessments for secondary uses of clinical data. This paper presents DataGauge, a systematic process for designing and implementing DQ assessments to evaluate repurposed data for a specific secondary use. DataGauge is composed of five steps: (1) Define information needs, (2) Develop a formal Data Needs Model (DNM), (3) Use the DNM and DQ theory to develop goal-specific DQ assessment requirements, (4) Extract DNM-specified data, and (5) Evaluate according to DQ requirements. DataGauge's main contribution is integrating general DQ theory and DQ assessment methods into a systematic process. This process supports the integration and practical implementation of existing Electronic Health Record-specific DQ assessment guidelines. DataGauge also provides an initial theory-based guidance framework that ties the DNM to DQ testing methods for each DQ dimension to aid the design of DQ assessments. This framework can be augmented with existing DQ guidelines to enable systematic assessment. DataGauge sets the stage for future systematic DQ assessment research by defining an assessment process, capable of adapting to a broad range of clinical datasets and secondary uses. Defining DataGauge sets the stage for new research directions such as DQ theory integration, DQ requirements portability research, DQ assessment tool development and DQ assessment tool usability.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659577/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44283612","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Willingness to Participate in Health Information Networks with Diverse Data Use: Evaluating Public Perspectives.","authors":"Jodyn Platt, Minakshi Raj, Ayşe G Büyüktür, M Grace Trinidad, Olufunmilayo Olopade, Mark S Ackerman, Sharon Kardia","doi":"10.5334/egems.288","DOIUrl":"10.5334/egems.288","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health information generated by health care encounters, research enterprises, and public health is increasingly interoperable and shareable across uses and users. This paper examines the US public's willingness to be a part of multi-user health information networks and identifies factors associated with that willingness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a probability-based sample (n = 890), we examined the univariable and multivariable relationships between willingness to participate in health information networks and demographic factors, trust, altruism, beliefs about the public's ethical obligation to participate in research, privacy, medical deception, and policy and governance using linear regression modeling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Willingness to be a part of a multi-user network that includes health care providers, mental health, social services, research, or quality improvement is low (26 percent-7.4 percent, depending on the user). Using stepwise regression, we identified a model that explained 42.6 percent of the variability in willingness to participate and included nine statistically significant factors associated with the outcome: Trust in the health system, confidence in policy, the belief that people have an obligation to participate in research, the belief that health researchers are accountable for conducting ethical research, the desire to give permission, education, concerns about insurance, privacy, and preference for notification.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our results suggest willingness to be a part of multi-user data networks is low, but that attention to governance may increase willingness. Building trust to enable acceptance of multi-use data networks will require a commitment to aligning data access practices with the expectations of the people whose data is being used.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6659576/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46656534","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}