Dataset Information

The Cosmos Collaborative: A Vendor-Facilitated Electronic Health Record Data Aggregation Platform.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Learning healthcare systems use routinely collected data to generate new evidence that informs future practice. While implementing an electronic health record (EHR) system can facilitate this goal for individual institutions, meaningfully aggregating data from multiple institutions can be more empowering. Cosmos is a cross-institution, single EHR vendor-facilitated data aggregation tool. This work aims to describe the initiative and illustrate its potential utility through several use cases.

Methods

Cosmos is designed to scale rapidly by leveraging preexisting agreements, clinical health information exchange networks, and data standards. Data are stored centrally as a limited dataset, but the customer facing query tool limits results to prevent patient reidentification.

Results

In 2 years, Cosmos grew to contain EHR data of more than 60 million patients. We present practical examples illustrating how Cosmos could further efforts in chronic disease surveillance (asthma and obesity), syndromic surveillance (seasonal influenza and the 2019 novel coronavirus), immunization adherence and adverse event reporting (human papilloma virus and measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccination), and health services research (antibiotic usage for upper respiratory infection).

Discussion

A low barrier of entry for Cosmos allows for the rapid accumulation of multi-institutional and mostly de-duplicated EHR data to power research and quality improvement queries characteristic of learning healthcare systems. Limitations are being vendor-specific, an "all or none" contribution model, and the lack of control over queries run on an institution's healthcare data.

Conclusion

Cosmos provides a model for within-vendor data standardization and aggregation and a steppingstone for broader intervendor interoperability.

SUBMITTER: Tarabichi Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8775787 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesRecent sepsis studies have defined patients as "infected" using a combination of culture and antibiotic orders rather than billing data. However, the accuracy of these definitions is unclear. We aimed to compare the accuracy of different established criteria for identifying infected patients using detailed chart review.DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingSix hospitals from three health systems in Illinois.PatientsAdult admissions with blood culture or antibiotic orders, or Angus International Classification of Diseases infection codes and death were eligible for study inclusion as potentially infected patients. Nine-hundred to 1,000 of these admissions were randomly selected from each health system for chart review, and a proportional number of patients who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria were also included and deemed not infected.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe accuracy of published billing code criteria by Angus et al and electronic health record criteria by Rhee et al and Seymour et al (Sepsis-3) was determined using the manual chart review results as the gold standard. A total of 5,215 patients were included, with 2,874 encounters analyzed via chart review and a proportional 2,341 added who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria. In the study cohort, 27.5% of admissions had at least one infection. This was most similar to the percentage of admissions with blood culture orders (26.8%), Angus infection criteria (28.7%), and the Sepsis-3 criteria (30.4%). Sepsis-3 criteria was the most sensitive (81%), followed by Angus (77%) and Rhee (52%), while Rhee (97%) and Angus (90%) were more specific than the Sepsis-3 criteria (89%). Results were similar for patients with organ dysfunction during their admission.ConclusionsPublished criteria have a wide range of accuracy for identifying infected patients, with the Sepsis-3 criteria being the most sensitive and Rhee criteria being the most specific. These findings have important implications for studies investigating the burden of sepsis on a local and national level.

Project description:Introduction:Electronic health record (EHR)-driven phenotyping is a critical first step in generating biomedical knowledge from EHR data. Despite recent progress, current phenotyping approaches are manual, time-consuming, error-prone, and platform-specific. This results in duplication of effort and highly variable results across systems and institutions, and is not scalable or portable. In this work, we investigate how the nascent Clinical Quality Language (CQL) can address these issues and enable high-throughput, cross-platform phenotyping. Methods:We selected a clinically validated heart failure (HF) phenotype definition and translated it into CQL, then developed a CQL execution engine to integrate with the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) platform. We executed the phenotype definition at two large academic medical centers, Northwestern Medicine and Weill Cornell Medicine, and conducted results verification (n = 100) to determine precision and recall. We additionally executed the same phenotype definition against two different data platforms, OHDSI and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), using the same underlying dataset and compared the results. Results:CQL is expressive enough to represent the HF phenotype definition, including Boolean and aggregate operators, and temporal relationships between data elements. The language design also enabled the implementation of a custom execution engine with relative ease, and results verification at both sites revealed that precision and recall were both 100%. Cross-platform execution resulted in identical patient cohorts generated by both data platforms. Conclusions:CQL supports the representation of arbitrarily complex phenotype definitions, and our execution engine implementation demonstrated cross-platform execution against two widely used clinical data platforms. The language thus has the potential to help address current limitations with portability in EHR-driven phenotyping and scale in learning health systems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Readmissions after hospitalization for pneumonia are common, but the few risk-prediction models have poor to modest predictive ability. Data routinely collected in the electronic health record (EHR) may improve prediction. OBJECTIVE:To develop pneumonia-specific readmission risk-prediction models using EHR data from the first day and from the entire hospital stay ("full stay"). DESIGN:Observational cohort study using stepwise-backward selection and cross-validation. SUBJECTS:Consecutive pneumonia hospitalizations from 6 diverse hospitals in north Texas from 2009-2010. MEASURES:All-cause nonelective 30-day readmissions, ascertained from 75 regional hospitals. RESULTS:Of 1463 patients, 13.6% were readmitted. The first-day pneumonia-specific model included sociodemographic factors, prior hospitalizations, thrombocytosis, and a modified pneumonia severity index; the full-stay model included disposition status, vital sign instabilities on discharge, and an updated pneumonia severity index calculated using values from the day of discharge as additional predictors. The full-stay pneumonia-specific model outperformed the first-day model (C statistic 0.731 vs 0.695; P = 0.02; net reclassification index = 0.08). Compared to a validated multi-condition readmission model, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pneumonia model, and 2 commonly used pneumonia severity of illness scores, the full-stay pneumonia-specific model had better discrimination (C statistic range 0.604-0.681; P < 0.01 for all comparisons), predicted a broader range of risk, and better reclassified individuals by their true risk (net reclassification index range, 0.09-0.18). CONCLUSIONS:EHR data collected from the entire hospitalization can accurately predict readmission risk among patients hospitalized for pneumonia. This approach outperforms a first-day pneumonia-specific model, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pneumonia model, and 2 commonly used pneumonia severity of illness scores. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:209-216.