Erin G Floyd1, Frauke von Versen-Höynck2,3, Jing Liu4, Yueh-Yun Chi4, Raquel R Fleischmann2, Valerie L Baker5. 1. Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hinman 335, 45 Kellogg Bldg, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Stanford University Medical Center, 1195 W Fremont Ave., Sunnyvale, CA, 94087, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, Hannover, 30625, Lower Saxony, Germany. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, P.O. Box 117450, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Stanford University Medical Center, 1195 W Fremont Ave., Sunnyvale, CA, 94087, USA. vlbaker@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to report challenges encountered when conducting inter-institutional data collection of obstetric (prenatal and postpartum) and delivery outcomes for research purposes and to propose solutions for enhanced efficiency. METHODS: Data were collected from women who consented to collection of obstetric and delivery records for an observational study of pregnancy and delivery outcomes following infertility treatment. We analyzed key issues relevant to improving efficiency of obstetric and delivery data collection via quantification of effort (such as number of calls and faxes) required to obtain records from different types of obstetric clinics and hospitals before and after utilization of a revised authorization. RESULTS: At time of analysis, records were successfully collected from 320 of the 451 participants who had delivered. The 320 participants received obstetric care at 63 institutions and delivered at 27 hospitals, with 168 (52.5 %) delivering at institutions other than home facility. At time of consent (8 weeks gestation), 155 of 320 (48.5 %) correctly predicted where they would receive obstetric care and 176 (55 %) where they would delivery. Most facilities (nearly 90 %) rejected our original authorization, but most (90 %) accepted the revised authorization described in this manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting records is time-consuming but important as over 50 % of our participants received care outside of the home facility. To efficiently collect outside records, we recommend that researchers interested in maternal and neonatal outcomes consider the guidelines outlined in this manuscript. This report also provides strong evidence of the need to develop data sharing through electronic health records for research purposes.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to report challenges encountered when conducting inter-institutional data collection of obstetric (prenatal and postpartum) and delivery outcomes for research purposes and to propose solutions for enhanced efficiency. METHODS: Data were collected from women who consented to collection of obstetric and delivery records for an observational study of pregnancy and delivery outcomes following infertility treatment. We analyzed key issues relevant to improving efficiency of obstetric and delivery data collection via quantification of effort (such as number of calls and faxes) required to obtain records from different types of obstetric clinics and hospitals before and after utilization of a revised authorization. RESULTS: At time of analysis, records were successfully collected from 320 of the 451 participants who had delivered. The 320 participants received obstetric care at 63 institutions and delivered at 27 hospitals, with 168 (52.5 %) delivering at institutions other than home facility. At time of consent (8 weeks gestation), 155 of 320 (48.5 %) correctly predicted where they would receive obstetric care and 176 (55 %) where they would delivery. Most facilities (nearly 90 %) rejected our original authorization, but most (90 %) accepted the revised authorization described in this manuscript. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting records is time-consuming but important as over 50 % of our participants received care outside of the home facility. To efficiently collect outside records, we recommend that researchers interested in maternal and neonatal outcomes consider the guidelines outlined in this manuscript. This report also provides strong evidence of the need to develop data sharing through electronic health records for research purposes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data sharing; Health information exchange; Infertility; Pregnancy outcome
Authors: Naomi K Tepper; Sherry L Farr; Bruce B Cohen; Angela Nannini; Zi Zhang; John E Anderson; Denise J Jamieson; Maurizio Macaluso Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2012-05
Authors: Michael F Furukawa; Jennifer King; Vaishali Patel; Chun-Ju Hsiao; Julia Adler-Milstein; Ashish K Jha Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Nancy S Sung; William F Crowley; Myron Genel; Patricia Salber; Lewis Sandy; Louis M Sherwood; Stephen B Johnson; Veronica Catanese; Hugh Tilson; Kenneth Getz; Elaine L Larson; David Scheinberg; E Albert Reece; Harold Slavkin; Adrian Dobs; Jack Grebb; Rick A Martinez; Allan Korn; David Rimoin Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wendy Y Zhang; Rebecca M Gardner; Kristopher I Kapphahn; Maya K Ramachandran; Gayathree Murugappan; Lusine Aghajanova; Ruth B Lathi Journal: F S Rep Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Sheriza Baksh; Anne Casper; Mindy S Christianson; Kate Devine; Kevin J Doody; Stephan Ehrhardt; Karl R Hansen; Ruth B Lathi; Fatmata Timbo; Rebecca Usadi; Wendy Vitek; David M Shade; James Segars; Valerie L Baker Journal: Trials Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Rosalieke E Wiegel; A H Jan Danser; Régine P M Steegers-Theunissen; Joop S E Laven; Sten P Willemsen; Valerie L Baker; Eric A P Steegers; Frauke von Versen-Höynck Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 5.958