Integrating electronic health record information to support integrated care: Practical application of ontologies to improve the accuracy of diabetes disease registers

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 52, Issue , 2014, Pages 364-372

  Liaw, Siaw Teng ^a,b   Taggart, Jane ^a   Yu, Hairong ^a   Lusignan, Simon de ^c   Kuziemsky, Craig ^d   Hayen, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b SOUTH WESTERN SYDNEY LOCAL HEALTH DISTRICT   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Case finding; EHR; Integration; Knowledge engineering; Ontology; Patient register

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; DIAGNOSIS; EHEALTH; HOSPITAL DATA PROCESSING; INTEGRATION; KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING; ONTOLOGY; RECORDS MANAGEMENT;

APPLICATION OF ONTOLOGIES; BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES; CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD (EHRS); PATIENT REGISTER; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS;

DATA INTEGRATION;

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DIABETES MELLITUS; DISEASE REGISTRY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; ONTOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; AUSTRALIA; BIOLOGICAL ONTOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; PROCEDURES;

ALGORITHMS; AUSTRALIA; BIOLOGICAL ONTOLOGIES; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE, INTEGRATED; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS;

EID: 84919844659     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.07.016     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Shaw S, Rosen R, Rumbold B. What is integrated care? Nuffield trust. Report no; June 2011.
2. Bodenheimer T., Lorig K., Holman H., Grumbach K. Patient self management of chronic disease in primary care. J Am Med Assoc 2002, 288(19):2469-2475.
3. Bodenheimer T., Wagner E.H., Grumbach K. Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness. J Am Med Assoc 2002, 288(15):1909-1914.
4. Hibbard J., Mahoney E., Stockard J., Tusler M. Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. HSR: Health Serv Res 2005, 40(6 (Part 1)):1918-1930.
5. Chute C, Pathak J, Savova G, Bailey K, Schor M, Hart L, et al., editors. The SHARPn project on secondary use of electronic medical record data: progress, plans, and possibilities. AMIA annual symposium 2011. Washington (DC); 2011.
6. Coiera E. Social networks, social media, and social diseases. BMJ 2013, 346(f3007). [22 May, 2013].
7. Wei W., Leibson C., Ransom J., Kho A., Caraballo P., Chai H., et al. Impact of data fragmentation across healthcare centers on the accuracy of a high-throughput clinical phenotyping algorithm for specifying subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012, 19(2):219-224. [Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3277630. Epub 2012 January 16, 2012 March-April].
8. de Lusignan S., Sadek N., Mulnier H., Tahir A., Russell-Jones D., Khunti K. Miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis of diabetes in primary care. Diabet Med 2012, 29(2):181-189.
9. Martin D., Wright J. Disease prevalence in the English population: a comparison of primary care registers and prevalence models. Soc Sci Med 2009, 68(2):266-274.
10. Ford D., Knight A. The Australian primary care collaboratives: an Australian general practice success story. Med J Aust 2010, 193(2):90-91. [July 19, 2010].
11. Ferguson R. Auditor general's report: scrapped diabetes registry cost Ontario government $24.4million. The Star 2013, 2012. [April 08, 2013].
12. Langan S., Benchimol E., Guttmann A., Moher D., Petersen I., Smeeth L., et al. Setting the RECORD straight: developing a guideline for the REporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected data. Clin Epidemiol 2013, 5:29-31.
13. Liyanage H., Liaw S.T., de Lusignan S. Reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected data (RECORD) statement: call for contributions from the clinical informatics community. Inform Prim Care 2012, 20(4):221-224.
14. Mehta A. The how (and why) of disease registers. Early Hum Develop 2010, 86(11):723-728.
15. de Lusignan S., Khunti K., Belsey J., Hattersley A., van Vlymen J., Gallagher H., et al. A method of identifying and correcting miscoding, misclassification and misdiagnosis in diabetes: a pilot and validation study of routinely collected data. Diabet Med 2010, 27:203-209.
16. Liaw S, Taggart J, Dennis S, Yeo A. Data quality and fitness for purpose of routinely collected data - a case study from an electronic practice-based research network (ePBRN). In: American medical informatics association annual symposium 2011. Washington (DC): Springer Verlag; 2011.
17. Taggart J, Liaw S, Dennis S, Yu H, Rahimi A, Jalaludin B, et al., editors. The University of NSW electronic practice based research network: disease registers, data quality and utility. In: 20th Australian national health informatics conference (HIC 2012). Sydney: Studies in Health Technology and Informatics; 2012.
18. Gruber T.R. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int J Hum Comput Stud 1995, 43(5-6). [Epub 928].
19. Carlsson S, editor. A critical realist perspective on IS evaluation research. European conf information systems 2005 proceedings; 2005.
20. Pawson R., Tilley N. Realistic evaluation 1997, Sage, London.
21. Feigenbaum E.A., McCorduck Pamela The fifth generation 1983, Addison-Wesle, Reading (MA). 1st ed.
22. Colombo G., Merico D., Boncoraglio G., De Paoli F., Ellul J., Frisoni G., et al. An ontological modeling approach to cerebrovascular disease studies: the NEUROWEB case. J Biomed Inform 2010, 43(4):469-484.
23. Beck T., Gollapudi S., Brunak S., Graf N., Lemke H., Dash D., et al. Knowledge engineering for health: a new discipline required to bridge the "ICT gap" between research and healthcare. Hum Mutat 2012, 33(5):797-802.
24. Liaw S., Boyle D.I.R. Primary care informatics and integrated care of chronic disease. Health informatics: an overview. Studies in health technology and informatics 2010, vol. 151. IOSPress.
25. Liyanage H, Liaw S, Kuziemsky C, de Lusignan S, editors. Ontologies to improve chronic disease management research and quality improvement studies - a conceptual framework. Medinfo 2013. Copenhagen; 2013.
26. Colagiuri S., Davies D., Girgis S., Colagiuri R. National evidence based guideline for case detection and diagnosis of type 2 diabetes 2009, Diabetes Australia and the NHMRC, Canberra.
27. Dunstan D., Zimmet P., Welborn T., De Courten M., Cameron A., Sicree R., et al. The rising prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance: the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study. Diabetes Care 2002, 25(5):829-834.
28. Rubin D., Lewis S., Mungall C., Misra S., Westerfield M., Ashburner M., et al. National center for biomedical ontology: advancing biomedicine through structured organization of scientific knowledge. OMICS (Summer) 2006, 10(2):185-198.
29. Perez-Rey D., Maojo V., Garcia-Remesal M., Alonso-Calvo R., Billhardt H., Martin-Sanchez F., et al. ONTOFUSION: ontology-based integration of genomic and clinical databases. Comput Biol Med 2006, 36(7-8):712-730. [PubMed PMID: 16144697. Epub 2005/09/08. Eng].
30. de Lusignan S., Liaw S., Michalakidis G., Jones S. Defining datasets and creating data dictionaries for quality improvement and research in chronic disease using routinely collected data: an ontology-driven approach. Inform Prim Care 2011, 19(3):127-134.
31. Rodriguez-Muro M, Calvanese D. Quest, a system for ontology based data access. KRDB research centre for knowledge and data: free University of Bozen-Bolzano; 2012.
32. Kahn M., Raebel M., Glanz J., Reidlinger K., Steiner J. A pragmatic framework for single-site and multisite data quality assessment in electronic health record-based clinical research. Med Care 2012, 50(7 Suppl 1). S2-S29.
33. Newcombe R. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 1998, 17:857-872.
34. Daneman D. Type 1 diabetes. Lancet 2006, 367(9513):847-858.
35. Sadek K., Khunti K., de Lusignan S. Classification of diabetes for primary care: a practical approach. Diabetes Prim Care 2012, 14(5):284-292.
36. Tai T., Anandarajah S., Dhoul N., de Lusignan S. Variation in clinical coding lists in UK general practice: a barrier to consistent data entry?. Inform Prim Care 2007, 15(3):143-150.
37. Michalakidis G., Kumarapeli P., Ring A., van Vlymen J., Krause P., de Lusignan S. A system for solution-orientated reporting of errors associated with the extraction of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010, 160(Pt 1):724-728.
38. de Lusignan S., Valentin T., Chan T., Hague N., Wood O., van Vlymen J., et al. Problems with primary care data quality: osteoporosis as an exemplar. Inform Prim Care 2004, 12(3):147-156.
39. Lipscombe L., Hux J. Trends in diabetes prevalence: incidence and mortality in Ontario, Canada 1995-2005: a population-based study. Lancet 2007, 369:750-756.
40. Rozenblum R., Jang Y., Zimlichman E., Salzberg C., Tamblyn M., Buckeridge D., et al. A qualitative study of Canada's experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology. CMAJ 2011, 183(5):E281-E288.