Dataset Information

Opportunities and Challenges in Developing a Cohort of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Electronic Primary Care Data.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To develop a cohort of patients with T2DM treated with insulin using CPRD to obtain an accurate diagnosis date. This was used to analyse time from T2DM diagnosis to first ever insulin prescription between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2012, for patients in England and Wales.

Methods

Patients aged 18 years and over at diagnosis, were included if prescribed an anti-diabetic drug and were excluded if first diagnosis-specific code was inconsistent with a T2DM diagnosis. Diagnosis codes were split into 8 categories based on whether they related to specific T2DM or non-specific diabetes codes. Patients were excluded if they had non-specific diagnosis codes and were prescribed insulin as their first-ever treatment for diabetes. Descriptive statistics for time from T2DM diagnosis to insulin initiation were calculated.

Results

Two hundred and fifty-six codes were identified which were consistent with a first-ever diagnosis of T2DM. 7 codes were considered to clearly define a diagnosis of T2DM, which were reported for 64% of patients. The final cohort comprised 11,917 patients and the median time to first insulin prescription from the date of diagnosis was 4.4 years.

Conclusions

A clear definition of cohort development is required to compare and interpret results from studies. Use of diagnosis and product codes is essential when examining use of drugs such as insulin, where competing diagnoses need to be considered separately.

SUBMITTER: Datta-Nemdharry P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5115653 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opportunities and Challenges in Developing a Cohort of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Electronic Primary Care Data.

Datta-Nemdharry Preeti P Thomson Andrew A Beynon Julie J

PloS one 20161118 11

<h4>Purpose</h4>To develop a cohort of patients with T2DM treated with insulin using CPRD to obtain an accurate diagnosis date. This was used to analyse time from T2DM diagnosis to first ever insulin prescription between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2012, for patients in England and Wales.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients aged 18 years and over at diagnosis, were included if prescribed an anti-diabetic drug and were excluded if first diagnosis-specific code was inconsistent with a T2DM diagnosis. Diagnosis codes ...[more]

PMID: 27861488

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying cases of disease in primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) is important for surveillance, research, quality improvement and clinical care. We aimed to develop and validate a case definition for type 1 diabetes mellitus using EMRs.MethodsFor this exploratory study, we used EMR data from the Southern Alberta Primary Care Network within the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN), for the period 2008 to 2016. For patients identified as having diabetes mellitus according to the existing CPCSSN case definition, we asked family physicians to confirm the diabetes subtype, to create the reference standard. We used 3 decision-tree classification algorithms and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression to identify variables that correctly distinguished between type 1 and type 2 diabetes cases.ResultsWe identified a total of 1309 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, 110 of whom were confirmed by their physicians as having type 1 diabetes. Two machine learning algorithms were useful in identifying these cases in the EMRs. The first algorithm used "type 1" text words or age less than 22 years at time of initial diabetes diagnosis; this algorithm had sensitivity 42.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.5%-52.5%), specificity 99.3% (95% CI 98.6%-99.7%), positive predictive value 85.5% (95% CI 72.8%-93.1%) and negative predictive value 94.9% (95% CI 93.5%-96.1%). The second algorithm used a combination of free-text terms, insulin prescriptions and age; it had sensitivity 87.3% (95% CI 79.2%-92.6%), specificity 85.4% (95% CI 83.2%-87.3%), positive predictive value 35.6% (95% CI 29.9%-41.6%) and negative predictive value 98.6% (95% CI 97.7%-99.2%).InterpretationWe used machine learning to develop and validate 2 case definitions that achieve different goals in distinguishing between type 1 and type 2 diabetes in CPCSSN data. Further validation and testing with a larger and more diverse sample are recommended.

Project description:Electronic health records (EHRs) have been successfully used in data science and machine learning projects. However, most of these data are collected for clinical use rather than for retrospective analysis. This means that researchers typically face many different issues when attempting to access and prepare the data for secondary use. We aimed to investigate how raw EHRs can be accessed and prepared in retrospective data science projects in a disciplined, effective, and efficient way. We report our experience and findings from a large-scale data science project analyzing routinely acquired retrospective data from the Kepler University Hospital in Linz, Austria. The project involved data collection from more than 150,000 patients over a period of 10 years. It included diverse data modalities, such as static demographic data, irregularly acquired laboratory test results, regularly sampled vital signs, and high-frequency physiological waveform signals. Raw medical data can be corrupted in many unexpected ways that demand thorough manual inspection and highly individualized data cleaning solutions. We present a general data preparation workflow, which was shaped in the course of our project and consists of the following 7 steps: obtain a rough overview of the available EHR data, define clinically meaningful labels for supervised learning, extract relevant data from the hospital's data warehouses, match data extracted from different sources, deidentify them, detect errors and inconsistencies therein through a careful exploratory analysis, and implement a suitable data processing pipeline in actual code. Only few of the data preparation issues encountered in our project were addressed by generic medical data preprocessing tools that have been proposed recently. Instead, highly individualized solutions for the specific data used in one's own research seem inevitable. We believe that the proposed workflow can serve as a guidance for practitioners, helping them to identify and address potential problems early and avoid some common pitfalls.

Project description:BackgroundWithin-consultation recruitment to primary care trials is challenging. Ensuring procedures are efficient and self-explanatory is the key to optimising recruitment. Trial recruitment software that integrates with the electronic health record to support and partially automate procedures is becoming more common. If it works well, such software can support greater participation and more efficient trial designs. An innovative electronic trial recruitment and outcomes software was designed to support recruitment to the Runny Ear randomised controlled trial, comparing topical, oral and delayed antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media with discharge in children. A qualitative evaluation investigated the views and experiences of primary care staff using this trial software.MethodsStaff were purposively sampled in relation to site, role and whether the practice successfully recruited patients. In-depth interviews were conducted using a flexible topic guide, audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsSixteen staff were interviewed, including GPs, practice managers, information technology (IT) leads and research staff. GPs wanted trial software that automatically captures patient data. However, the experience of getting the software to work within the limited and complex IT infrastructure of primary care was frustrating and time consuming. Installation was reliant on practice level IT expertise, which varied between practices. Although most had external IT support, this rarely included supported for research IT. Arrangements for approving new software varied across practices and often, but not always, required authorisation from Clinical Commissioning Groups.ConclusionsPrimary care IT systems are not solely under the control of individual practices or CCGs or the National Health Service. Rather they are part of a complex system that spans all three and is influenced by semi-autonomous stakeholders operating at different levels. This led to time consuming and sometimes insurmountable barriers to installation at the practice level. These need to be addressed if software supporting efficient research in primary care is to become a reality.

Project description:ImportanceDespite a decade of effort by national stakeholders to bring cancer survivorship to the forefront of primary care, there is little evidence to suggest that primary care has begun to integrate comprehensive services to manage the care of long-term cancer survivors.ObjectiveTo explain why primary care has not begun to integrate comprehensive cancer survivorship services.Design, setting, and participantsComparative case study of 12 advanced primary care practices in the United States recruited from March 2015 to February 2017. Practices were selected from a national registry of 151 workforce innovators compiled for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Practices were recruited to include diversity in policy context and organizational structure. Researchers conducted 10 to 12 days of ethnographic data collection in each practice, including interviews with practice personnel and patient pathways with cancer survivors. Fieldnotes, transcripts, and practice documents were analyzed within and across cases to identify salient themes.Main outcomes and measuresDescription of cancer survivorship care delivery in advanced patient-centered medical homes, including identification of barriers and promotional factors related to that care.ResultsThe 12 practices came from multiple states and policy contexts and had a mix of clinicians trained in family or internal medicine. All but 3 were recognized as National Committee on Quality Assurance level 3 patient-centered medical homes. None of the practices provided any type of comprehensive cancer survivorship services. Three interdependent explanatory factors emerged: the absence of a recognized, distinct clinical category of survivorship in primary care; a lack of actionable information to treat this patient population; and current information systems unable to support survivorship care.Conclusions and relevanceTo increase the potential for primary care transformation efforts to integrate survivorship services into routine care, survivorship must become a recognized clinical category with actionable care plans supported by a functional information system infrastructure.

Dataset Information

Opportunities and Challenges in Developing a Cohort of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Electronic Primary Care Data.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Opportunities and Challenges in Developing a Cohort of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Electronic Primary Care Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets