HIS-based Kaplan-Meier plots--a single source approach for documenting and reusing routine survival information.

Department of Medical Informatics, University Muenster, Domagkstraße 9, 48149 Münster, Germany.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (Impact Factor: 1.6). 02/2011; 11:11. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-11-11
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Survival or outcome information is important for clinical routine as well as for clinical research and should be collected completely, timely and precisely. This information is relevant for multiple usages including quality control, clinical trials, observational studies and epidemiological registries. However, the local hospital information system (HIS) does not support this documentation and therefore this data has to generated by paper based or spreadsheet methods which can result in redundantly documented data. Therefore we investigated, whether integrating the follow-up documentation of different departments in the HIS and reusing it for survival analysis can enable the physician to obtain survival curves in a timely manner and to avoid redundant documentation.
We analysed the current follow-up process of oncological patients in two departments (urology, haematology) with respect to different documentation forms. We developed a concept for comprehensive survival documentation based on a generic data model and implemented a follow-up form within the HIS of the University Hospital Muenster which is suitable for a secondary use of these data. We designed a query to extract the relevant data from the HIS and implemented Kaplan-Meier plots based on these data. To re-use this data sufficient data quality is needed. We measured completeness of forms with respect to all tumour cases in the clinic and completeness of documented items per form as incomplete information can bias results of the survival analysis.
Based on the form analysis we discovered differences and concordances between both departments. We identified 52 attributes from which 13 were common (e.g. procedures and diagnosis dates) and were used for the generic data model. The electronic follow-up form was integrated in the clinical workflow. Survival data was also retrospectively entered in order to perform survival and quality analyses on a comprehensive data set. Physicians are now able to generate timely Kaplan-Meier plots on current data. We analysed 1029 follow-up forms of 965 patients with survival information between 1992 and 2010. Completeness of forms was 60.2%, completeness of items ranges between 94.3% and 98.5%. Median overall survival time was 16.4 years; median event-free survival time was 7.7 years.
It is feasible to integrate survival information into routine HIS documentation such that Kaplan-Meier plots can be generated directly and in a timely manner.

0 0
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Semantic interoperability between routine healthcare and clinical research is an unsolved issue, as information systems in the healthcare domain still use proprietary and site-specific data models. However, information exchange and data harmonization are essential for physicians and scientists if they want to collect and analyze data from different hospitals in order to build up registries and perform multicenter clinical trials. Consequently, there is a need for a standardized metadata exchange based on common data models. Currently this is mainly done by informatics experts instead of medical experts. We propose to enable physicians to exchange, rate, comment and discuss their own medical data models in a collaborative web-based repository of medical forms in a standardized format. Based on a comprehensive requirement analysis, a web-based portal for medical data models was specified. In this context, a data model is the technical specification (attributes, data types, value lists) of a medical form without any layout information. The CDISC Operational Data Model (ODM) was chosen as the appropriate format for the standardized representation of data models. The system was implemented with Ruby on Rails and applies web 2.0 technologies to provide a community based solution. Forms from different source systems - both routine care and clinical research - were converted into ODM format and uploaded into the portal. A portal for medical data models based on ODM-files was implemented ( Physicians are able to upload, comment, rate and download medical data models. More than 250 forms with approximately 8000 items are provided in different views (overview and detailed presentation) and in multiple languages. For instance, the portal contains forms from clinical and research information systems. The portal provides a system-independent repository for multilingual data models in ODM format which can be used by physicians. It serves as a platform for discussion and enables the exchange of multilingual medical data models in a standardized way.
    Applied clinical informatics. 01/2012; 3(3):276-89.
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decisions to adopt a particular innovation may vary between stakeholders because individual stakeholders may disagree on the costs and benefits involved. This may translate to disagreement between stakeholders on priorities in the implementation process, possibly explaining the slow diffusion of innovations in health care. In this study, we explore the differences in stakeholder preferences for innovations, and quantify the difference in stakeholder priorities regarding costs and benefits. The decision support technique called the analytic hierarchy process was used to quantify the preferences of stakeholders for nine information technology (IT) innovations in hospital care. The selection of the innovations was based on a literature review and expert judgments. Decision criteria related to the costs and benefits of the innovations were defined. These criteria were improvement in efficiency, health gains, satisfaction with care process, and investments required. Stakeholders judged the importance of the decision criteria and subsequently prioritized the selected IT innovations according to their expectations of how well the innovations would perform for these decision criteria. The stakeholder groups (patients, nurses, physicians, managers, health care insurers, and policy makers) had different preference structures for the innovations selected. For instance, self-tests were one of the innovations most preferred by health care insurers and managers, owing to their expected positive impacts on efficiency and health gains. However, physicians, nurses and patients strongly doubted the health gains of self-tests, and accordingly ranked self-tests as the least-preferred innovation. The various stakeholder groups had different expectations of the value of the nine IT innovations. The differences are likely due to perceived stakeholder benefits of each innovation, and less to the costs to individual stakeholder groups. This study provides a first exploratory quantitative insight into stakeholder positions concerning innovation in health care, and presents a novel way to study differences in stakeholder preferences. The results may be taken into account by decision makers involved in the implementation of innovations.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 08/2013; 13(1):91. · 1.60 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 24, 2013