You Chen1, Nancy M Lorenzi1,2, Warren S Sandberg1,3, Kelly Wolgast2,4, Bradley A Malin1,5. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University. 4. Healthcare Leadership Program, School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University. 5. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this investigation was to determine whether automated approaches can learn patient-oriented care teams via utilization of an electronic medical record (EMR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To perform this investigation, we designed a data-mining framework that relies on a combination of latent topic modeling and network analysis to infer patterns of collaborative teams. We applied the framework to the EMR utilization records of over 10 000 employees and 17 000 inpatients at a large academic medical center during a 4-month window in 2010. Next, we conducted an extrinsic evaluation of the patterns to determine the plausibility of the inferred care teams via surveys with knowledgeable experts. Finally, we conducted an intrinsic evaluation to contextualize each team in terms of collaboration strength (via a cluster coefficient) and clinical credibility (via associations between teams and patient comorbidities). RESULTS: The framework discovered 34 collaborative care teams, 27 (79.4%) of which were confirmed as administratively plausible. Of those, 26 teams depicted strong collaborations, with a cluster coefficient > 0.5. There were 119 diagnostic conditions associated with 34 care teams. Additionally, to provide clarity on how the survey respondents arrived at their determinations, we worked with several oncologists to develop an illustrative example of how a certain team functions in cancer care. DISCUSSION: Inferred collaborative teams are plausible; translating such patterns into optimized collaborative care will require administrative review and integration with management practices. CONCLUSIONS: EMR utilization records can be mined for collaborative care patterns in large complex medical centers.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this investigation was to determine whether automated approaches can learn patient-oriented care teams via utilization of an electronic medical record (EMR) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To perform this investigation, we designed a data-mining framework that relies on a combination of latent topic modeling and network analysis to infer patterns of collaborative teams. We applied the framework to the EMR utilization records of over 10 000 employees and 17 000 inpatients at a large academic medical center during a 4-month window in 2010. Next, we conducted an extrinsic evaluation of the patterns to determine the plausibility of the inferred care teams via surveys with knowledgeable experts. Finally, we conducted an intrinsic evaluation to contextualize each team in terms of collaboration strength (via a cluster coefficient) and clinical credibility (via associations between teams and patient comorbidities). RESULTS: The framework discovered 34 collaborative care teams, 27 (79.4%) of which were confirmed as administratively plausible. Of those, 26 teams depicted strong collaborations, with a cluster coefficient > 0.5. There were 119 diagnostic conditions associated with 34 care teams. Additionally, to provide clarity on how the survey respondents arrived at their determinations, we worked with several oncologists to develop an illustrative example of how a certain team functions in cancer care. DISCUSSION: Inferred collaborative teams are plausible; translating such patterns into optimized collaborative care will require administrative review and integration with management practices. CONCLUSIONS: EMR utilization records can be mined for collaborative care patterns in large complex medical centers.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Wayne J Katon; Elizabeth H B Lin; Michael Von Korff; Paul Ciechanowski; Evette J Ludman; Bessie Young; Do Peterson; Carolyn M Rutter; Mary McGregor; David McCulloch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joshua C Denny; Marylyn D Ritchie; Melissa A Basford; Jill M Pulley; Lisa Bastarache; Kristin Brown-Gentry; Deede Wang; Dan R Masys; Dan M Roden; Dana C Crawford Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Ashimiyu B Durojaiye; Scott Levin; Matthew Toerper; Hadi Kharrazi; Harold P Lehmann; Ayse P Gurses Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: José S Enriquez; Yan Chu; Shivanand Pudakalakatti; Kang Lin Hsieh; Duncan Salmon; Prasanta Dutta; Niki Zacharias Millward; Eugene Lurie; Steven Millward; Florencia McAllister; Anirban Maitra; Subrata Sen; Ann Killary; Jian Zhang; Xiaoqian Jiang; Pratip K Bhattacharya; Shayan Shams Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2021-06-17
Authors: Ashimiyu Durojaiye; James Fackler; Nicolette McGeorge; Kristen Webster; Hadi Kharrazi; Ayse Gurses Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 5.428