Dataset Information

Translating an evidence-based clinical pathway into shareable CDS: developing a systematic process using publicly available tools.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a process for translating semi-structured clinical decision support (CDS) into shareable, computer-readable CDS.

Materials and methods

We developed a systematic and transparent process using publicly available tools (eGLIA, GEM Cutter, VSAC, and the CDS Authoring Tool) to translate an evidence-based clinical pathway (CP) into a Clinical Quality Language (CQL)-encoded CDS artifact.

Results

We produced a 4-phase process for translating a CP into a CQL-based CDS artifact. CP content was extracted using GEM into discrete clinical concepts, encoded using standard terminologies into value sets on VSAC, evaluated against workflows using a wireframe, and finally structured as a computer readable CDS artifact using CQL. This process included a quality control step and intermediate products to support transparency and reuse by other CDS developers.

Discussion

Translating a CP into a shareable, computer-readable CDS artifact was accomplished through a systematic process. Our process identified areas of ambiguity and gaps in the CP, which generated improvements in the CP. Collaboration with clinical subject experts and the CP development team was essential for translation. Publicly available tools were sufficient to support most translation steps, but expression of certain complex concepts required manual encoding.

Conclusion

Standardized development of CDS from a CP is feasible using a systematic 4-phase process. CPs represent a potential reservoir for developers of evidence-based CDS. Aspects of CP development simplified portions of the CDS translation process. Publicly available tools can facilitate CDS development; however, enhanced tool features are needed to model complex CDS statements.

SUBMITTER: Michel JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7810443 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature.ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated.MethodsWe systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28-a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables.ResultsA total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources.ConclusionsA variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43.

Project description:Background On October 1, 2015, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9) to the ICD, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) compendium of codes for diagnosis and billing in health care, but translation between the two is often inexact. Here we describe a validated crosswalk to translate ICD-9 codes into ICD-10 codes, with a focus on complications after carotid revascularization and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Methods and Results We devised an 8-step process to derive and validate ICD-10 codes from existing ICD-9 codes. We used publicly available sources, including the General Equivalence Mapping database, to translate ICD-9 codes used in prior work to ICD-10 codes. We defined ICD-10 codes as validated if they were concordant with the initial ICD-9 codes after manual comparison by two physicians. Our primary validation measure was the percent of valid ICD-10 codes out of the total ICD-10 codes obtained during translation. We began with 126 ICD-9 diagnosis codes used for complication identification after carotid revascularization procedures, and 97 ICD-9 codes for complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm procedures. Translation generated 143 ICD-10 codes for carotid revascularization, a 14% increase from the initial 126 codes. Manual comparison demonstrated 98% concordance, with 99% agreement between the reviewers. Similarly, we identified 108 ICD-10 codes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, an 11% increase from the initial 97 ICD-9 codes. We again noted excellent concordance and agreement (98% and 100%, respectively). Manual review identified 4 ICD-10 codes incorrectly translated from ICD-9 codes for carotid revascularization, and 3 codes incorrectly translated for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Conclusions Algorithms to crosswalk lists of ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 codes can leverage electronic resources to minimize the burden of code translation. However, manual review for code validation may be necessary, with collaboration across institutions for researchers to share their efforts.