Dataset Information

Understanding enterprise data warehouses to support clinical and translational research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Among National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, adoption of electronic data warehouses for research (EDW4R) containing data from electronic health record systems is nearly ubiquitous. Although benefits of EDW4R include more effective, efficient support of scientists, little is known about how CTSA hubs have implemented EDW4R services. The goal of this qualitative study was to understand the ways in which CTSA hubs have operationalized EDW4R to support clinical and translational researchers.

Materials and methods

After conducting semistructured interviews with informatics leaders from 20 CTSA hubs, we performed a directed content analysis of interview notes informed by naturalistic inquiry.

Results

We identified 12 themes: organization and data; oversight and governance; data access request process; data access modalities; data access for users with different skill sets; engagement, communication, and literacy; service management coordinated with enterprise information technology; service management coordinated within a CTSA hub; service management coordinated between informatics and biostatistics; funding approaches; performance metrics; and future trends and current technology challenges.

Discussion

This study is a step in developing an improved understanding and creating a common vocabulary about EDW4R operations across institutions. Findings indicate an opportunity for establishing best practices for EDW4R operations in academic medicine. Such guidance could reduce the costs associated with developing an EDW4R by establishing a clear roadmap and maturity path for institutions to follow.

Conclusions

CTSA hubs described varying approaches to EDW4R operations that may assist other institutions in better serving investigators with electronic patient data.

SUBMITTER: Campion TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7647350 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, there have been numerous initiatives undertaken to describe critical information needs related to the collection, management, analysis, and dissemination of data in support of biomedical research (J Investig Med 54:327-333, 2006); (J Am Med Inform Assoc 16:316-327, 2009); (Physiol Genomics 39:131-140, 2009); (J Am Med Inform Assoc 18:354-357, 2011). A common theme spanning such reports has been the importance of understanding and optimizing people, organizational, and leadership factors in order to achieve the promise of efficient and timely research (J Am Med Inform Assoc 15:283-289, 2008). With the emergence of clinical and translational science (CTS) as a national priority in the United States, and the corresponding growth in the scale and scope of CTS research programs, the acuity of such information needs continues to increase (JAMA 289:1278-1287, 2003); (N Engl J Med 353:1621-1623, 2005); (Sci Transl Med 3:90, 2011). At the same time, systematic evaluations of optimal people, organizational, and leadership factors that influence the provision of data, information, and knowledge management technologies and methods are notably lacking.MethodsIn response to the preceding gap in knowledge, we have conducted both: 1) a structured survey of domain experts at Academic Health Centers (AHCs); and 2) a subsequent thematic analysis of public-domain documentation provided by those same organizations. The results of these approaches were then used to identify critical factors that may influence access to informatics expertise and resources relevant to the CTS domain.ResultsA total of 31 domain experts, spanning the Biomedical Informatics (BMI), Computer Science (CS), Information Science (IS), and Information Technology (IT) disciplines participated in a structured surveyprocess. At a high level, respondents identified notable differences in theaccess to BMI, CS, and IT expertise and services depending on the establishment of a formal BMI academic unit and the perceived relationship between BMI, CS, IS, and IT leaders. Subsequent thematic analysis of the aforementioned public domain documents demonstrated a discordance between perceived and reported integration across and between BMI, CS, IS, and IT programs and leaders with relevance to the CTS domain.ConclusionDifferences in people, organization, and leadership factors do influence the effectiveness of CTS programs, particularly with regard to the ability to access and leverage BMI, CS, IS, and IT expertise and resources. Based on this finding, we believe that the development of a better understanding of how optimal BMI, CS, IS, and IT organizational structures and leadership models are designed and implemented is critical to both the advancement of CTS and ultimately, to improvements in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of healthcare.