4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rare Diseases in Hospital Information Systems—An Interoperable Methodology for Distributed Data Quality Assessments

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background  Multisite research networks such as the project “Collaboration on Rare Diseases” connect various hospitals to obtain sufficient data for clinical research. However, data quality (DQ) remains a challenge for the secondary use of data recorded in different health information systems. High levels of DQ as well as appropriate quality assessment methods are needed to support the reuse of such distributed data.

          Objectives  The aim of this work is the development of an interoperable methodology for assessing the quality of data recorded in heterogeneous sources to improve the quality of rare disease (RD) documentation and support clinical research.

          Methods  We first developed a conceptual framework for DQ assessment. Using this theoretical guidance, we implemented a software framework that provides appropriate tools for calculating DQ metrics and for generating local as well as cross-institutional reports. We further applied our methodology on synthetic data distributed across multiple hospitals using Personal Health Train. Finally, we used precision and recall as metrics to validate our implementation.

          Results  Four DQ dimensions were defined and represented as disjunct ontological categories. Based on these top dimensions, 9 DQ concepts, 10 DQ indicators, and 25 DQ parameters were developed and applied to different data sets. Randomly introduced DQ issues were all identified and reported automatically. The generated reports show the resulting DQ indicators and detected DQ issues.

          Conclusion  We have shown that our approach yields promising results, which can be used for local and cross-institutional DQ assessments. The developed frameworks provide useful methods for interoperable and privacy-preserving assessments of DQ that meet the specified requirements. This study has demonstrated that our methodology is capable of detecting DQ issues such as ambiguity or implausibility of coded diagnoses. It can be used for DQ benchmarking to improve the quality of RD documentation and to support clinical research on distributed data.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research

          Objective To review the methods and dimensions of data quality assessment in the context of electronic health record (EHR) data reuse for research. Materials and methods A review of the clinical research literature discussing data quality assessment methodology for EHR data was performed. Using an iterative process, the aspects of data quality being measured were abstracted and categorized, as well as the methods of assessment used. Results Five dimensions of data quality were identified, which are completeness, correctness, concordance, plausibility, and currency, and seven broad categories of data quality assessment methods: comparison with gold standards, data element agreement, data source agreement, distribution comparison, validity checks, log review, and element presence. Discussion Examination of the methods by which clinical researchers have investigated the quality and suitability of EHR data for research shows that there are fundamental features of data quality, which may be difficult to measure, as well as proxy dimensions. Researchers interested in the reuse of EHR data for clinical research are recommended to consider the adoption of a consistent taxonomy of EHR data quality, to remain aware of the task-dependence of data quality, to integrate work on data quality assessment from other fields, and to adopt systematic, empirically driven, statistically based methods of data quality assessment. Conclusion There is currently little consistency or potential generalizability in the methods used to assess EHR data quality. If the reuse of EHR data for clinical research is to become accepted, researchers should adopt validated, systematic methods of EHR data quality assessment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A Harmonized Data Quality Assessment Terminology and Framework for the Secondary Use of Electronic Health Record Data

            Objective: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmonized to a comprehensive unified terminology with definitions and examples and organized into a conceptual framework to support a common approach to defining whether EHR data is ‘fit’ for specific uses. Materials and Methods: DQ publications, informatics and analytics experts, managers of established DQ programs, and operational manuals from several mature EHR-based research networks were reviewed to identify potential DQ terms and categories. Two face-to-face stakeholder meetings were used to vet an initial set of DQ terms and definitions that were grouped into an overall conceptual framework. Feedback received from data producers and users was used to construct a draft set of harmonized DQ terms and categories. Multiple rounds of iterative refinement resulted in a set of terms and organizing framework consisting of DQ categories, subcategories, terms, definitions, and examples. The harmonized terminology and logical framework’s inclusiveness was evaluated against ten published DQ terminologies. Results: Existing DQ terms were harmonized and organized into a framework by defining three DQ categories: (1) Conformance (2) Completeness and (3) Plausibility and two DQ assessment contexts: (1) Verification and (2) Validation. Conformance and Plausibility categories were further divided into subcategories. Each category and subcategory was defined with respect to whether the data may be verified with organizational data, or validated against an accepted gold standard, depending on proposed context and uses. The coverage of the harmonized DQ terminology was validated by successfully aligning to multiple published DQ terminologies. Discussion: Existing DQ concepts, community input, and expert review informed the development of a distinct set of terms, organized into categories and subcategories. The resulting DQ terms successfully encompassed a wide range of disparate DQ terminologies. Operational definitions were developed to provide guidance for implementing DQ assessment procedures. The resulting structure is an inclusive DQ framework for standardizing DQ assessment and reporting. While our analysis focused on the DQ issues often found in EHR data, the new terminology may be applicable to a wide range of electronic health data such as administrative, research, and patient-reported data. Conclusion: A consistent, common DQ terminology, organized into a logical framework, is an initial step in enabling data owners and users, patients, and policy makers to evaluate and communicate data quality findings in a well-defined manner with a shared vocabulary. Future work will leverage the framework and terminology to develop reusable data quality assessment and reporting methods.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              DataSHIELD: taking the analysis to the data, not the data to the analysis

              Background: Research in modern biomedicine and social science requires sample sizes so large that they can often only be achieved through a pooled co-analysis of data from several studies. But the pooling of information from individuals in a central database that may be queried by researchers raises important ethico-legal questions and can be controversial. In the UK this has been highlighted by recent debate and controversy relating to the UK’s proposed ‘care.data’ initiative, and these issues reflect important societal and professional concerns about privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property. DataSHIELD provides a novel technological solution that can circumvent some of the most basic challenges in facilitating the access of researchers and other healthcare professionals to individual-level data. Methods: Commands are sent from a central analysis computer (AC) to several data computers (DCs) storing the data to be co-analysed. The data sets are analysed simultaneously but in parallel. The separate parallelized analyses are linked by non-disclosive summary statistics and commands transmitted back and forth between the DCs and the AC. This paper describes the technical implementation of DataSHIELD using a modified R statistical environment linked to an Opal database deployed behind the computer firewall of each DC. Analysis is controlled through a standard R environment at the AC. Results: Based on this Opal/R implementation, DataSHIELD is currently used by the Healthy Obese Project and the Environmental Core Project (BioSHaRE-EU) for the federated analysis of 10 data sets across eight European countries, and this illustrates the opportunities and challenges presented by the DataSHIELD approach. Conclusions: DataSHIELD facilitates important research in settings where: (i) a co-analysis of individual-level data from several studies is scientifically necessary but governance restrictions prohibit the release or sharing of some of the required data, and/or render data access unacceptably slow; (ii) a research group (e.g. in a developing nation) is particularly vulnerable to loss of intellectual property—the researchers want to fully share the information held in their data with national and international collaborators, but do not wish to hand over the physical data themselves; and (iii) a data set is to be included in an individual-level co-analysis but the physical size of the data precludes direct transfer to a new site for analysis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Methods Inf Med
                Methods Inf Med
                10.1055/s-00035037
                Methods of Information in Medicine
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                0026-1270
                2511-705X
                16 May 2023
                September 2023
                1 May 2023
                : 62
                : 03-04
                : 71-89
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany
                [2 ]Centre for Rare Diseases, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
                [3 ]Chair of Computer Science 5, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
                [4 ]Medical Data Integration Center, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence Kais Tahar Georg-August-University, University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Medical Informatics 37075 GöttingenGermany Kais.tahar@ 123456med.uni-goettingen.de
                Article
                ME22-02-0019
                10.1055/a-2006-1018
                10462432
                36596461
                4bae2d99-d481-4fda-bace-60554dc9c13c
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 July 2022
                : 10 November 2022
                Funding
                Funding This study was done within the “Collaboration on Rare Diseases” of the Medical Informatics Initiative (CORD-MI) funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), funding numbers 01ZZ1911R and 01ZZ1911O.
                Categories
                Original Article for a Focus Theme

                data quality,rare disease,distributed analysis,ontology,semantic interoperability,healthcare standards

                Comments

                Comment on this article