F FitzHenry1, F S Resnic2, S L Robbins2, J Denton3, L Nookala3, D Meeker4, L Ohno-Machado5, M E Matheny6. 1. Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Nashville, TN ; Department of Biomedical Informatics; Vanderbilt University, Nashville , TN. 2. Division of Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, MA. 3. Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Nashville, TN ; Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN. 4. Department of Health, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica , CA. 5. Division of Biomedical Informatics, University of California , San Diego, CA. 6. Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Nashville, TN ; Department of Biomedical Informatics; Vanderbilt University, Nashville , TN ; Division of General Internal Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN ; Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University , Nashville, TN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adoption of a common data model across health systems is a key infrastructure requirement to allow large scale distributed comparative effectiveness analyses. There are a growing number of common data models (CDM), such as Mini-Sentinel, and the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDMs. OBJECTIVES: In this case study, we describe the challenges and opportunities of a study specific use of the OMOP CDM by two health systems and describe three comparative effectiveness use cases developed from the CDM. METHODS: The project transformed two health system databases (using crosswalks provided) into the OMOP CDM. Cohorts were developed from the transformed CDMs for three comparative effectiveness use case examples. Administrative/billing, demographic, order history, medication, and laboratory were included in the CDM transformation and cohort development rules. RESULTS: Record counts per person month are presented for the eligible cohorts, highlighting differences between the civilian and federal datasets, e.g. the federal data set had more outpatient visits per person month (6.44 vs. 2.05 per person month). The count of medications per person month reflected the fact that one system's medications were extracted from orders while the other system had pharmacy fills and medication administration records. The federal system also had a higher prevalence of the conditions in all three use cases. Both systems required manual coding of some types of data to convert to the CDM. CONCLUSIONS: The data transformation to the CDM was time consuming and resources required were substantial, beyond requirements for collecting native source data. The need to manually code subsets of data limited the conversion. However, once the native data was converted to the CDM, both systems were then able to use the same queries to identify cohorts. Thus, the CDM minimized the effort to develop cohorts and analyze the results across the sites.
BACKGROUND: Adoption of a common data model across health systems is a key infrastructure requirement to allow large scale distributed comparative effectiveness analyses. There are a growing number of common data models (CDM), such as Mini-Sentinel, and the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDMs. OBJECTIVES: In this case study, we describe the challenges and opportunities of a study specific use of the OMOP CDM by two health systems and describe three comparative effectiveness use cases developed from the CDM. METHODS: The project transformed two health system databases (using crosswalks provided) into the OMOP CDM. Cohorts were developed from the transformed CDMs for three comparative effectiveness use case examples. Administrative/billing, demographic, order history, medication, and laboratory were included in the CDM transformation and cohort development rules. RESULTS: Record counts per person month are presented for the eligible cohorts, highlighting differences between the civilian and federal datasets, e.g. the federal data set had more outpatient visits per person month (6.44 vs. 2.05 per person month). The count of medications per person month reflected the fact that one system's medications were extracted from orders while the other system had pharmacy fills and medication administration records. The federal system also had a higher prevalence of the conditions in all three use cases. Both systems required manual coding of some types of data to convert to the CDM. CONCLUSIONS: The data transformation to the CDM was time consuming and resources required were substantial, beyond requirements for collecting native source data. The need to manually code subsets of data limited the conversion. However, once the native data was converted to the CDM, both systems were then able to use the same queries to identify cohorts. Thus, the CDM minimized the effort to develop cohorts and analyze the results across the sites.
Entities:
Keywords:
Common data model; big data; comparative effectiveness
Authors: Li Zhou; Lisa M Mahoney; Anastasiya Shakurova; Foster Goss; Frank Y Chang; David W Bates; Roberto A Rocha Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2012-11-03
Authors: David Madigan; Patrick B Ryan; Martijn Schuemie; Paul E Stang; J Marc Overhage; Abraham G Hartzema; Marc A Suchard; William DuMouchel; Jesse A Berlin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Francesca M Nicosia; Malena J Spar; Michael A Steinman; Sei J Lee; Rebecca T Brown Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-12-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Bonnie L Westra; Beverly Christie; Steven G Johnson; Lisiane Pruinelli; Anne LaFlamme; Suzan G Sherman; Jung In Park; Connie W Delaney; Grace Gao; Stuart Speedie Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Kristine E Lynch; Stephen A Deppen; Scott L DuVall; Benjamin Viernes; Aize Cao; Daniel Park; Elizabeth Hanchrow; Kushan Hewa; Peter Greaves; Michael E Matheny Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Luke V Rasmussen; Pascal S Brandt; Guoqian Jiang; Richard C Kiefer; Jennifer A Pacheco; Prakash Adekkanattu; Jessica S Ancker; Fei Wang; Zhenxing Xu; Jyotishman Pathak; Yuan Luo Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Robert M Cronin; Alese E Halvorson; Cassie Springer; Xiaoke Feng; Lina Sulieman; Roxana Loperena-Cortes; Kelsey Mayo; Robert J Carroll; Qingxia Chen; Brian K Ahmedani; Jason Karnes; Bruce Korf; Christopher J O'Donnell; Jun Qian; Andrea H Ramirez Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 4.497