Anna Ostropolets1, Philip Zachariah1,2, Patrick Ryan1, Ruijun Chen1,3, George Hripcsak1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Translational Data Science and Informatics, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A number of clinical decision support tools aim to use observational data to address immediate clinical needs, but few of them address challenges and biases inherent in such data. The goal of this article is to describe the experience of running a data consult service that generates clinical evidence in real time and characterize the challenges related to its use of observational data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2019, we launched the Data Consult Service pilot with clinicians affiliated with Columbia University Irving Medical Center. We created and implemented a pipeline (question gathering, data exploration, iterative patient phenotyping, study execution, and assessing validity of results) for generating new evidence in real time. We collected user feedback and assessed issues related to producing reliable evidence. RESULTS: We collected 29 questions from 22 clinicians through clinical rounds, emails, and in-person communication. We used validated practices to ensure reliability of evidence and answered 24 of them. Questions differed depending on the collection method, with clinical rounds supporting proactive team involvement and gathering more patient characterization questions and questions related to a current patient. The main challenges we encountered included missing and incomplete data, underreported conditions, and nonspecific coding and accurate identification of drug regimens. CONCLUSIONS: While the Data Consult Service has the potential to generate evidence and facilitate decision making, only a portion of questions can be answered in real time. Recognizing challenges in patient phenotyping and designing studies along with using validated practices for observational research are mandatory to produce reliable evidence.
OBJECTIVE: A number of clinical decision support tools aim to use observational data to address immediate clinical needs, but few of them address challenges and biases inherent in such data. The goal of this article is to describe the experience of running a data consult service that generates clinical evidence in real time and characterize the challenges related to its use of observational data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2019, we launched the Data Consult Service pilot with clinicians affiliated with Columbia University Irving Medical Center. We created and implemented a pipeline (question gathering, data exploration, iterative patient phenotyping, study execution, and assessing validity of results) for generating new evidence in real time. We collected user feedback and assessed issues related to producing reliable evidence. RESULTS: We collected 29 questions from 22 clinicians through clinical rounds, emails, and in-person communication. We used validated practices to ensure reliability of evidence and answered 24 of them. Questions differed depending on the collection method, with clinical rounds supporting proactive team involvement and gathering more patient characterization questions and questions related to a current patient. The main challenges we encountered included missing and incomplete data, underreported conditions, and nonspecific coding and accurate identification of drug regimens. CONCLUSIONS: While the Data Consult Service has the potential to generate evidence and facilitate decision making, only a portion of questions can be answered in real time. Recognizing challenges in patient phenotyping and designing studies along with using validated practices for observational research are mandatory to produce reliable evidence.
Authors: Martijn J Schuemie; M Soledad Cepeda; Marc A Suchard; Jianxiao Yang; Yuxi Tian; Alejandro Schuler; Patrick B Ryan; David Madigan; George Hripcsak Journal: Harv Data Sci Rev Date: 2020-01-31
Authors: George Hripcsak; Jon D Duke; Nigam H Shah; Christian G Reich; Vojtech Huser; Martijn J Schuemie; Marc A Suchard; Rae Woong Park; Ian Chi Kei Wong; Peter R Rijnbeek; Johan van der Lei; Nicole Pratt; G Niklas Norén; Yu-Chuan Li; Paul E Stang; David Madigan; Patrick B Ryan Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2015
Authors: Rachel B Weinstein; Patrick Ryan; Jesse A Berlin; Amy Matcho; Martijn Schuemie; Joel Swerdel; Kayur Patel; Daniel Fife Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Tom De Smedt; Elizabeth Merrall; Denis Macina; Silvia Perez-Vilar; Nick Andrews; Kaatje Bollaerts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer C E Lane; James Weaver; Kristin Kostka; Talita Duarte-Salles; Maria Tereza F Abrahao; Heba Alghoul; Osaid Alser; Thamir M Alshammari; Patricia Biedermann; Juan M Banda; Edward Burn; Paula Casajust; Mitchell M Conover; Aedin C Culhane; Alexander Davydov; Scott L DuVall; Dmitry Dymshyts; Sergio Fernandez-Bertolin; Kristina Fišter; Jill Hardin; Laura Hester; George Hripcsak; Benjamin Skov Kaas-Hansen; Seamus Kent; Sajan Khosla; Spyros Kolovos; Christophe G Lambert; Johan van der Lei; Kristine E Lynch; Rupa Makadia; Andrea V Margulis; Michael E Matheny; Paras Mehta; Daniel R Morales; Henry Morgan-Stewart; Mees Mosseveld; Danielle Newby; Fredrik Nyberg; Anna Ostropolets; Rae Woong Park; Albert Prats-Uribe; Gowtham A Rao; Christian Reich; Jenna Reps; Peter Rijnbeek; Selva Muthu Kumaran Sathappan; Martijn Schuemie; Sarah Seager; Anthony G Sena; Azza Shoaibi; Matthew Spotnitz; Marc A Suchard; Carmen O Torre; David Vizcaya; Haini Wen; Marcel de Wilde; Junqing Xie; Seng Chan You; Lin Zhang; Oleg Zhuk; Patrick Ryan; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra Journal: Lancet Rheumatol Date: 2020-08-21
Authors: Dev Dash; Arjun Gokhale; Birju S Patel; Alison Callahan; Jose Posada; Gomathi Krishnan; William Collins; Ron Li; Kevin Schulman; Lily Ren; Nigam H Shah Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 2.342