Linking Patient Encounters across Primary and Ancillary Electronic Health Record Systems: A Comparison of Two Approaches.

Background: To achieve scientific goals, researchers often require integration of data from a primary electronic health record (EHR) system and one or more ancillary EHR systems used during the same patient care encounter. Although studies have demonstrated approaches for linking patient identity records across different EHR systems, little is known about linking patient encounter records across primary and ancillary EHR systems. Objectives: We compared a patients-first approach versus an encounters-first approach for linking patient encounter records across multiple EHR systems. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 348,904 patients with 533,283 encounters from 2010 to 2020 across our institution's primary EHR system and an ancillary EHR system used in perioperative settings. For the patients-first approach and the encounters-first approach, we measured the number of patient and encounter links created as well as runtime. Results: While the patients-first approach linked 43% of patients and 49% of encounters, the encounters-first approach linked 98% of patients and 100% of encounters. The encounters-first approach was 20 times faster than the patients-first approach for linking patients and 33% slower for linking encounters. Conclusion: Findings suggest that common patient and encounter identifiers shared among EHR systems via automated interfaces may be clinically useful but not "research-ready" and thus require an encounters-first linkage approach to enable secondary use for scientific purposes. Based on our search, this study is among the first to demonstrate approaches for linking patient encounters across multiple EHR systems. Enterprise data warehouse for research efforts elsewhere may benefit from an encounters-first approach.

Understanding enterprise data warehouses to support clinical and translational research: impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare organizations, including Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs funded by the National Institutes of Health, seek to enable secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data through an enterprise data warehouse for research (EDW4R), but optimal approaches are unknown. In this qualitative study, our goal was to understand EDW4R impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We engaged a convenience sample of informatics leaders from CTSA hubs (n = 21) for semi-structured interviews and completed a directed content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: EDW4R have created institutional capacity for single- and multi-center studies, democratized access to EHR data for investigators from multiple disciplines, and enabled the learning health system. Bibliometrics have been challenging due to investigator non-compliance, but one hub's requirement to link all study protocols with funding records enabled quantifying an EDW4R's multi-million dollar impact. Sustainability of EDW4R has relied on multiple funding sources with a general shift away from the CTSA grant toward institutional and industry support. To address EDW4R demand, institutions have expanded staff, used different governance approaches, and provided investigator self-service tools. EDW4R accessibility can benefit from improved tools incorporating user-centered design, increased data literacy among scientists, expansion of informaticians in the workforce, and growth of team science. DISCUSSION: As investigator demand for EDW4R has increased, approaches to tracking impact, ensuring sustainability, and improving accessibility of EDW4R resources have varied. CONCLUSION: This study adds to understanding of how informatics leaders seek to support investigators using EDW4R across the CTSA consortium and potentially elsewhere.

Implementation of a commercial federated network of electronic health record data to enable sponsor-initiated clinical trials at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: A commercial federated network called TriNetX has connected electronic health record (EHR) data from academic medical centers (AMCs) with biopharmaceutical sponsors in a privacy-preserving manner to promote sponsor-initiated clinical trials. Little is known about how AMCs have implemented TriNetX to support clinical trials. FINDINGS: At our AMC over a six-year period, TriNetX integrated into existing institutional workflows enabled 402 requests for sponsor-initiated clinical trials, 14 % (n = 56) of which local investigators expressed interest in conducting. Although clinical trials administrators indicated TriNetX yielded unique study opportunities, measurement of impact of institutional participation in the network was challenging due to lack of a common trial identifier shared across TriNetX, sponsor, and our institution. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to describe integration of a federated network of EHR data into institutional workflows for sponsor-initiated clinical trials. This case report may inform efforts at other institutions.

Comparative Merits of Available Mortality Data Sources for Clinical Research.

Obtaining reliable data on patient mortality is a critical challenge facing observational researchers seeking to conduct studies using real-world data. As these analyses are conducted more broadly using newly-available sources of real-world evidence, missing data can serve as a rate-limiting factor. We conducted a comparison of mortality data sources from different stakeholder perspectives - academic medical center (AMC) informatics service providers, AMC research coordinators, industry analytics professionals, and academics - to understand the strengths and limitations of differing mortality data sources: locally generated data from sites conducting research, data provided by governmental sources, and commercially available data sets. Researchers seeking to conduct observational studies using extant data should consider these factors in sourcing outcomes data for their populations of interest.