Timothy I Kennell1, James H Willig1,2, James J Cimino1,2. 1. Informatics Institute, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical informatics researchers depend on the availability of high-quality data from the electronic health record (EHR) to design and implement new methods and systems for clinical practice and research. However, these data are frequently unavailable or present in a format that requires substantial revision. This article reports the results of a review of informatics literature published from 2010 to 2016 that addresses these issues by identifying categories of data content that might be included or revised in the EHR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an iterative review process on 1,215 biomedical informatics research articles. We placed them into generic categories, reviewed and refined the categories, and then assigned additional articles, for a total of three iterations. RESULTS: Our process identified eight categories of data content issues: Adverse Events, Clinician Cognitive Processes, Data Standards Creation and Data Communication, Genomics, Medication List Data Capture, Patient Preferences, Patient-reported Data, and Phenotyping. DISCUSSION: These categories summarize discussions in biomedical informatics literature that concern data content issues restricting clinical informatics research. These barriers to research result from data that are either absent from the EHR or are inadequate (e.g., in narrative text form) for the downstream applications of the data. In light of these categories, we discuss changes to EHR data storage that should be considered in the redesign of EHRs, to promote continued innovation in clinical informatics. CONCLUSION: Based on published literature of clinical informaticians' reuse of EHR data, we characterize eight types of data content that, if included in the next generation of EHRs, would find immediate application in advanced informatics tools and techniques. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical informatics researchers depend on the availability of high-quality data from the electronic health record (EHR) to design and implement new methods and systems for clinical practice and research. However, these data are frequently unavailable or present in a format that requires substantial revision. This article reports the results of a review of informatics literature published from 2010 to 2016 that addresses these issues by identifying categories of data content that might be included or revised in the EHR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used an iterative review process on 1,215 biomedical informatics research articles. We placed them into generic categories, reviewed and refined the categories, and then assigned additional articles, for a total of three iterations. RESULTS: Our process identified eight categories of data content issues: Adverse Events, Clinician Cognitive Processes, Data Standards Creation and Data Communication, Genomics, Medication List Data Capture, Patient Preferences, Patient-reported Data, and Phenotyping. DISCUSSION: These categories summarize discussions in biomedical informatics literature that concern data content issues restricting clinical informatics research. These barriers to research result from data that are either absent from the EHR or are inadequate (e.g., in narrative text form) for the downstream applications of the data. In light of these categories, we discuss changes to EHR data storage that should be considered in the redesign of EHRs, to promote continued innovation in clinical informatics. CONCLUSION: Based on published literature of clinical informaticians' reuse of EHR data, we characterize eight types of data content that, if included in the next generation of EHRs, would find immediate application in advanced informatics tools and techniques. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
Authors: Suzanne Falck; Sruthi Adimadhyam; David O Meltzer; Surrey M Walton; William L Galanter Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2013-08-08 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Catherine L Liang; Claus Hamann; Andrew S Karson; Matvey B Palchuk; Patricia C McCarthy; Melanie Sherlock; Alexander Turchin; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Nhi-Ha T Trinh; Soo Jeong Youn; Jessica Sousa; Susan Regan; C Andres Bedoya; Trina E Chang; Maurizio Fava; Albert Yeung Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Svetlana Lyalina; Bethany Percha; Paea LePendu; Srinivasan V Iyer; Russ B Altman; Nigam H Shah Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mary F Davis; Subramaniam Sriram; William S Bush; Joshua C Denny; Jonathan L Haines Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Roshanthi Weerasinghe; Maritza Martel; Carlo Bifulco; Ted Assur; Joann G Elmore; Donald L Weaver Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2014-07-30
Authors: Marissa Burgermaster; Jung H Son; Patricia G Davidson; Arlene M Smaldone; Gilad Kuperman; Daniel J Feller; Katherine Gardner Burt; Matthew E Levine; David J Albers; Chunhua Weng; Lena Mamykina Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Amy Joseph; Charles Mullett; Christa Lilly; Matthew Armistead; Harold J Cox; Michael Denney; Misha Varma; David Rich; Donald A Adjeroh; Gianfranco Doretto; William Neal; Lee A Pyles Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.342