Dataset Information

Linking cohort-based data with electronic health records: a proof-of-concept methodological study in Hong Kong.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Data linkage of cohort-based data and electronic health records (EHRs) has been practised in many countries, but in Hong Kong there is still a lack of such research. To expand the use of multisource data, we aimed to identify a feasible way of linking two cohorts with EHRs in Hong Kong.

Methods

Participants in the 'Children of 1997' birth cohort and the Chinese Early Development Instrument (CEDI) cohort were separated into several batches. The Hong Kong Identity Card Numbers (HKIDs) of each batch were then uploaded to the Hong Kong Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System (CDARS) to retrieve EHRs. Within the same batch, each participant has a unique combination of date of birth and sex which can then be used for exact matching, as no HKID will be returned from CDARS. Raw data collected for the two cohorts were checked for the mismatched cases. After the matching, we conducted a simple descriptive analysis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) information collected in the CEDI cohort via the Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behaviour Scale (SWAN) and EHRs.

Results

In total, 3473 and 910 HKIDs in the birth cohort and CEDI cohort were separated into 44 and 5 batches, respectively, and then submitted to the CDARS, with 100% and 97% being valid HKIDs respectively. The match rates were confirmed to be 100% and 99.75% after checking the cohort data. From our illustration using the ADHD information in the CEDI cohort, 36 (4.47%) individuals had ADHD-Combined score over the clinical cut-off in the SWAN survey, and 68 (8.31%) individuals had ADHD records in EHRs.

Conclusions

Using date of birth and sex as identifiable variables, we were able to link the cohort data and EHRs with high match rates. This method will assist in the generation of databases for future multidisciplinary research using both cohort data and EHRs.

SUBMITTER: Gao L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8220454 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently there are only two population studies on sepsis incidence in Asia. The burden of sepsis in Hong Kong is unknown. We developed a sepsis surveillance method to estimate sepsis incidence from a population electronic health record (EHR) in Hong Kong using objective clinical data. The study objective was to assess our method's performance in identifying sepsis using a retrospective cohort. We compared its accuracy to administrative sepsis surveillance methods such as Angus' and Martin's methods.MethodIn this single centre retrospective study we applied our sepsis surveillance method on adult patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. Two clinicians independently reviewed the clinical notes to determine which patients had sepsis. Performance was assessed by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and area under the curve (AUC) of Angus', Martin's and our surveillance methods using clinical review as "gold standard."ResultsBetween January 1 and February 28, 2018, our sepsis surveillance method identified 1352 adult patients hospitalised with suspected infection. We found that 38.9% (95%CI 36.3-41.5) of these patients had sepsis. Using a 490 patient validation cohort, two clinicians had good agreement with weighted kappa of 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.81) before coming to consensus on diagnosis of uncomplicated infection or sepsis for all patients. Our method had sensitivity 0.93 (95%CI 0.89-0.96), specificity 0.86 (95%CI 0.82-0.90) and an AUC 0.90 (95%CI 0.87-0.92) when validated against clinician review. In contrast, Angus' and Martin's methods had AUCs 0.56 (95%CI 0.53-0.58) and 0.56 (95%CI 0.52-0.59), respectively.ConclusionsA sepsis surveillance method based on objective data from a population EHR in Hong Kong was more accurate than administrative methods. It may be used to estimate sepsis population incidence and outcomes in Hong Kong.Trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov on October 3, 2019 ( NCT04114214 ).