James E Tcheng 1 , Joseph P Drozda 2 , Davera Gabriel 1 , Anne Heath 2 , Rebecca W Wilgus 1 , Mary Williams 1 , Thomas A Windle 1 , John R Windle 3 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess the current state of clinical data interoperability, we evaluated the use of data standards across 38 large professional society registries. METHODS: The analysis included 4 primary components: 1) environmental scan, 2) abstraction and cross-tabulation of clinical concepts and corresponding data elements from registry case report forms, dictionaries, and / or data models, 3) cross-tabulation of same across national common data models, and 4) specifying data element metadata to achieve native data interoperability. RESULTS: The registry analysis identified approximately 50 core clinical concepts. None were captured using the same data representation across all registries, and there was little implementation of data standards. To improve technical implementation, we specified 13 key metadata for each concept to be used to achieve data consistency. CONCLUSION: The registry community has not benefitted from and does not contribute to interoperability efforts. A common, authoritative process to specify and implement common data elements is greatly needed. ©2019 AMIA - All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To assess the current state of clinical data interoperability, we evaluated the use of data standards across 38 large professional society registries. METHODS: The analysis included 4 primary components: 1) environmental scan, 2) abstraction and cross-tabulation of clinical concepts and corresponding data elements from registry case report forms, dictionaries, and / or data models, 3) cross-tabulation of same across national common data models, and 4) specifying data element metadata to achieve native data interoperability. RESULTS: The registry analysis identified approximately 50 core clinical concepts. None were captured using the same data representation across all registries, and there was little implementation of data standards. To improve technical implementation, we specified 13 key metadata for each concept to be used to achieve data consistency. CONCLUSION: The registry community has not benefitted from and does not contribute to interoperability efforts. A common, authoritative process to specify and implement common data elements is greatly needed. ©2019 AMIA - All rights reserved.
Year: 2020
PMID： 32308883 PMCID： PMC7153125
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc ISSN： 1559-4076