Building a Harmonized Datamart by Integrating Cross-Institutional Systems of Clinical, Outcome, and Genomic Data: The Pediatric Patient Informatics Platform (PPIP).

PURPOSE: Siloed electronic medical data limits utility and accessibility. At the Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, cross-institutional data were inconsistent and difficult to access. To unify data for clinical operations, administration, and research, we developed the Pediatric Patient Informatics Platform (PPIP), an integrated datamart harmonizing multiple source systems across two institutions into a common technology. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Starting in 2009, user requirements were gathered and data sources were prioritized. Project teams, including biostatisticians, database developers, and an external contractor, were formed. Read-access to source systems was established. The 3-layer PPIP architecture was developed: STAGING, a near-exact copy of source data; INTEGRATION, where data were reorganized into domains; and, CONSUMPTION, where data were optimized for rapid retrieval. The diverse systems were integrated into a common IBM Netezza technology. Data filters were defined to accurately capture the Center's patients, and derived data items were created for harmonization across sources. An interactive online query tool, PPIP360, was developed using Microstrategy Analytics. RESULTS: Driven by scientific objectives, the PPIP datamart was created, including 33,674 patients, 2,983 protocols, and 3.6 million patient visits from 14 source databases, 164 source tables, and 2,622 source data items. The PPIP360 has 605 data items and 33 metrics across 11 reports and dashboards. Dana-Farber and Boston Children's established a legal data-sharing agreement. The PPIP has supported hundreds of faculty, staff, and projects, including planning clinical trials and informing strategic planning. CONCLUSION: The PPIP has successfully harmonized and integrated diagnostic, demographic, laboratory, treatment, clinical outcome, pathology, transplant, meta-protocol, and -omics data, for efficient, daily operational and research activities at Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, and future external sharing.

Quality and methods of developing practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences. METHODS: Five different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: evidence based, consensus based and consensus based with no explicit consideration of evidence (CB-EB). Each guideline was evaluated by three of the authors using each of the instruments. For each guideline we assessed the agreement among 14 decision points which were selected from the NCCN (National Cancer Comprehensive Network) guidelines algorithm. For each decision point we recorded the level of the quality of the information used to support it. A regression analysis was performed to assess if the percentage of high quality evidence used in the guidelines development was related to the overall quality of the guidelines. RESULTS: Three guidelines were classified as EB, three as CB-EB and two as CB. The EB guidelines scored better than CB, with the CB-EB scoring in the middle among all instruments for guidelines quality assessment. No major disagreement in recommendations was detected among the guidelines regardless of the method used for development, but the EB guidelines had a better agreement with the benchmark guideline for any decision point. When the source of evidence used to support decision were of high quality, we found a higher level of full agreement among the guidelines' recommendations. Up to 94% of variation in the quality score among guidelines could be explained by the quality of evidence used for guidelines development. CONCLUSION: EB guidelines have a better quality than CB guidelines and CB-EB guidelines. Explicit use of high quality evidence can lead to a better agreement among recommendations. However, no major disagreement among guidelines was noted regardless of the method for their development.

Measuring quality of care in the treatment of colorectal cancer: the moffitt quality practice initiative.

PURPOSE: The Moffitt Quality Practice Initiative (MQPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment, the ultimate goal of which is to improve the quality of cancer care at a statewide level. The initial phase of this project focused on developing procedures, determining feasibility, and evaluating utility for assessing quality of care for colorectal cancer within an existing affiliate network. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Representatives from four oncology groups selected quality measures consistent with evidence-, consensus-, and safety-based guidelines that could be abstracted from medical records. Trained abstractors then reviewed records of all eligible colorectal patients seen by each practice in 2004. Frequencies of responses for each indicator were tabulated for overall and practice-specific level of adherence and were compared among practices. RESULTS: Adherence was uniformly high for several indicators, including confirmatory pathology report, staging information, and chemotherapy discussion or recommendation. Lower adherence was evident across practices for performance of carcinoembryonic tests and complete colonoscopic evaluations. Significant variation among practices was evident only for consent for chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The initial phase of MQPI demonstrated the feasibility and utility of assessing quality indicators for colorectal cancer among members of an existing affiliate network. Findings identified areas where adherence to care was uniformly high, but also identified areas where both overall and practice-specific adherence were less than optimal. These efforts lay the groundwork for expanding MQPI in several directions that have in common the potential to improve the quality of cancer care on a statewide basis.