Adela Grando1, Davide Sottara2, Ripudaman Singh3, Anita Murcko4, Hiral Soni4, Tianyu Tang5, Nassim Idouraine4, Michael Todd6, Mike Mote7, Darwyn Chern8, Christy Dye8, Mary Jo Whitfield9. 1. Biomedical Informatics, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Scottsdale, AZ, United States. Electronic address: agrando@asu.edu. 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States. 3. School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering, Tempe, AZ, United States. 4. Biomedical Informatics, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Scottsdale, AZ, United States. 5. University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, United States. 6. College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, United States. 7. Health Current, Phoenix, AZ, United States. 8. Partners in Recovery, Phoenix, AZ, United States. 9. Jewish Family and Children's Services, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consent2Share (C2S) is an open source software created by the Office of the National Coordinator Data Segmentation for Privacy initiative to support electronic health record (EHR) granular segmentation. To date, there are no published formal evaluations of Consent2Share. METHOD: Structured data (e.g. medications) codified using standard clinical terminologies (e.g. RxNorm) was extracted from the EHR of 36 patients with behavioral health conditions from study sites. EHRs were available through a health information exchange and two sites. The EHR data was already classified into data types (e.g. procedures and services). Both Consent2Share and health providers classified EHR data based on value sets (e.g. mental health) and sensitivity (e.g. not sensitive. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis were used to compare differences between data categorizations. RESULTS: From the resulting 1,080 medical records items, 584 were distinct. Significant differences were found between sensitivity classifications by Consent2Share and providers (χ2 (2, N = 584) = 114.74, p = <0.0001). Sensitivity comparisons led to 56.0 % of agreements, 31.2 % disagreements, and 12.8 % partial agreements. Most (97.8 %) disagreements resulted from information classified as not sensitive by Consent2Share, but sensitive by provider (e.g. behavioral health prevention education service). In terms of data types, most disagreements (57.1 %) focused on procedures and services information (e.g. ligation of fallopian tube). When considering value sets, most disagreements focused on genetic data (100.0 %), followed by sexual and reproductive health (88.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to further validate Consent2Share before broad use in health care settings. The outcomes from this pilot study will help guide improvements in segmentation logic of tools like Consent2Share and may set the stage for a new generation of personalized consent engines.
BACKGROUND: Consent2Share (C2S) is an open source software created by the Office of the National Coordinator Data Segmentation for Privacy initiative to support electronic health record (EHR) granular segmentation. To date, there are no published formal evaluations of Consent2Share. METHOD: Structured data (e.g. medications) codified using standard clinical terminologies (e.g. RxNorm) was extracted from the EHR of 36 patients with behavioral health conditions from study sites. EHRs were available through a health information exchange and two sites. The EHR data was already classified into data types (e.g. procedures and services). Both Consent2Share and health providers classified EHR data based on value sets (e.g. mental health) and sensitivity (e.g. not sensitive. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis were used to compare differences between data categorizations. RESULTS: From the resulting 1,080 medical records items, 584 were distinct. Significant differences were found between sensitivity classifications by Consent2Share and providers (χ2 (2, N = 584) = 114.74, p = <0.0001). Sensitivity comparisons led to 56.0 % of agreements, 31.2 % disagreements, and 12.8 % partial agreements. Most (97.8 %) disagreements resulted from information classified as not sensitive by Consent2Share, but sensitive by provider (e.g. behavioral health prevention education service). In terms of data types, most disagreements (57.1 %) focused on procedures and services information (e.g. ligation of fallopian tube). When considering value sets, most disagreements focused on genetic data (100.0 %), followed by sexual and reproductive health (88.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to further validate Consent2Share before broad use in health care settings. The outcomes from this pilot study will help guide improvements in segmentation logic of tools like Consent2Share and may set the stage for a new generation of personalized consent engines.
Authors: Laura J Hoeksema; Alia Bazzy-Asaad; Edwin A Lomotan; Diana E Edmonds; Gabriela Ramírez-Garnica; Richard N Shiffman; Leora I Horwitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Josceli Maria Tenório; Anderson Diniz Hummel; Frederico Molina Cohrs; Vera Lucia Sdepanian; Ivan Torres Pisa; Heimar de Fátima Marin Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Peter H Schwartz; Kelly Caine; Sheri A Alpert; Eric M Meslin; Aaron E Carroll; William M Tierney Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Duwayne L Willett; Vaishnavi Kannan; Ling Chu; Joel R Buchanan; Ferdinand T Velasco; John D Clark; Jason S Fish; Adolfo R Ortuzar; Josh E Youngblood; Deepa G Bhat; Mujeeb A Basit Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Julia Ivanova; Tianyu Tang; Nassim Idouraine; Anita Murcko; Mary Jo Whitfield; Christy Dye; Darwyn Chern; Adela Grando Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-04-20