Dataset Information

Health Data Processes: A Framework for Analyzing and Discussing Efficient Use and Reuse of Health Data With a Focus on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

ABSTRACT: The collection and use of patient health data are central to any kind of activity in the health care system. These data may be produced during routine clinical processes or obtained directly from the patient using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Although efficiency and other reasons justify data availability for a range of potentially relevant uses, these data are nearly always collected for a single specific purpose. The health care literature reflects this narrow scope, and there is limited literature on the joint use of health data for daily clinical use, clinical research, surveillance, and administrative purposes. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework for discussing the efficient use of health data with a specific focus on the role of PRO measures. PRO data may be used at an individual patient level to inform patient care or shared decision making and to tailor care to individual needs or group-level needs as a complement to health record data, such as that on mortality and readmission, in order to inform service delivery and measure the real-world effectiveness of treatment. PRO measures may be used either for their own sake, to provide valuable information from the patient perspective, or as a proxy for clinical data that would otherwise not be feasible to collect. We introduce a framework to analyze any health care activity that involves health data. The framework consists of four data processes (patient identification, data collection, data aggregation and data use), further structured into two dichotomous dimensions in each data process (level: group vs patient; timeframe: ad hoc vs systematic). This framework is used to analyze various health activities with respect to joint use of data, considering the technical, legal, organizational, and logistical challenges that characterize each data process. Finally, we propose a model for joint use of health data with data collected during follow-up as a base. Demands for health data will continue to increase, which will further add to the need for the concerted use and reuse of PRO data for parallel purposes. Repeated and uncoordinated PRO data collection for the same patient for different purposes results in misuse of resources for the patient and the health care system as well as reduced response rates owing to questionnaire fatigue. PRO data can be routinely collected both at the hospital (from inpatients as well as outpatients) and outside of hospital settings; in primary or social care settings; or in the patient's home, provided the health informatics infrastructure is in place. In the future, clinical settings are likely to be a prominent source of PRO data; however, we are also likely to see increased remote collection of PRO data by patients in their own home (telePRO). Data collection for research and quality surveillance will have to adapt to this circumstance and adopt complementary data capture methods that take advantage of the utility of PRO data collected during daily clinical practice. The European Union's regulation with respect to the protection of personal data-General Data Protection Regulation-imposes severe restrictions on the use of health data for parallel purposes, and steps should be taken to alleviate the consequences while still protecting personal data against misuse.

SUBMITTER: Hjollund NHI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6547770 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health Data Processes: A Framework for Analyzing and Discussing Efficient Use and Reuse of Health Data With a Focus on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Hjollund Niels Henrik Ingvar NHI Valderas José Maria JM Kyte Derek D Calvert Melanie Jane MJ

Journal of medical Internet research 20190521 5

The collection and use of patient health data are central to any kind of activity in the health care system. These data may be produced during routine clinical processes or obtained directly from the patient using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Although efficiency and other reasons justify data availability for a range of potentially relevant uses, these data are nearly always collected for a single specific purpose. The health care literature reflects this narrow scope, and there is l ...[more]

PMID: 31115347

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives Internationally, there has been considerable debate about the role of data in supporting quality improvement in health care. Our objective was to understand how, why and in what circumstances the feedback of aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data improved patient care. Methods We conducted a realist synthesis. We identified three main programme theories underlying the use of patient-reported outcome measures as a quality improvement strategy and expressed them as nine 'if then' propositions. We identified international evidence to test these propositions through searches of electronic databases and citation tracking, and supplemented our synthesis with evidence from similar forms of performance data. We synthesized this evidence through comparing the mechanisms and impact of patient-reported outcome measures and other performance data on quality improvement in different contexts. Results Three programme theories were identified: supporting patient choice, improving accountability and enabling providers to compare their performance with others. Relevant contextual factors were extent of public disclosure, use of financial incentives, perceived credibility of the data and the practicality of the results. Available evidence suggests that patients or their agents rarely use any published performance data when selecting a provider. The perceived motivation behind public reporting is an important determinant of how providers respond. When clinicians perceived that performance indicators were not credible but were incentivized to collect them, gaming or manipulation of data occurred. Outcome data do not provide information on the cause of poor care: providers needed to integrate and interpret patient-reported outcome measures and other outcome data in the context of other data. Lack of timeliness of performance data constrains their impact. Conclusions Although there is only limited research evidence to support some widely held theories of how aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate quality improvement, several lessons emerge from interventions sharing the same programme theories to help guide the increasing use of these measures.

Project description:BackgroundCreation of a new electronic health record (EHR)-based registry often can be a "one-off" complex endeavor: first developing new EHR data collection and clinical decision support tools, followed by developing registry-specific data extractions from the EHR for analysis. Each development phase typically has its own long development and testing time, leading to a prolonged overall cycle time for delivering one functioning registry with companion reporting into production. The next registry request then starts from scratch. Such an approach will not scale to meet the emerging demand for specialty registries to support population health and value-based care.ObjectiveTo determine if the creation of EHR-based specialty registries could be markedly accelerated by employing (a) a finite core set of EHR data collection principles and methods, (b) concurrent engineering of data extraction and data warehouse design using a common dimensional data model for all registries, and (c) agile development methods commonly employed in new product development.MethodsWe adopted as guiding principles to (a) capture data as a byproduct of care of the patient, (b) reinforce optimal EHR use by clinicians, (c) employ a finite but robust set of EHR data capture tool types, and (d) leverage our existing technology toolkit. Registries were defined by a shared condition (recorded on the Problem List) or a shared exposure to a procedure (recorded on the Surgical History) or to a medication (recorded on the Medication List). Any EHR fields needed - either to determine registry membership or to calculate a registry-associated clinical quality measure (CQM) - were included in the enterprise data warehouse (EDW) shared dimensional data model. Extract-transform-load (ETL) code was written to pull data at defined "grains" from the EHR into the EDW model. All calculated CQM values were stored in a single Fact table in the EDW crossing all registries. Registry-specific dashboards were created in the EHR to display both (a) real-time patient lists of registry patients and (b) EDW-generated CQM data. Agile project management methods were employed, including co-development, lightweight requirements documentation with User Stories and acceptance criteria, and time-boxed iterative development of EHR features in 2-week "sprints" for rapid-cycle feedback and refinement.ResultsUsing this approach, in calendar year 2015 we developed a total of 43 specialty chronic disease registries, with 111 new EHR data collection and clinical decision support tools, 163 new clinical quality measures, and 30 clinic-specific dashboards reporting on both real-time patient care gaps and summarized and vetted CQM measure performance trends.ConclusionsThis study suggests concurrent design of EHR data collection tools and reporting can quickly yield useful EHR structured data for chronic disease registries, and bodes well for efforts to migrate away from manual abstraction. This work also supports the view that in new EHR-based registry development, as in new product development, adopting agile principles and practices can help deliver valued, high-quality features early and often.

Dataset Information

Health Data Processes: A Framework for Analyzing and Discussing Efficient Use and Reuse of Health Data With a Focus on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Publications

Health Data Processes: A Framework for Analyzing and Discussing Efficient Use and Reuse of Health Data With a Focus on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets