The IHI Rochester Report 2022 on Healthcare Informatics Research: Resuming After the CoViD-19.

In 2020, the CoViD-19 pandemic spread worldwide in an unexpected way and suddenly modified many life issues, including social habits, social relationships, teaching modalities, and more. Such changes were also observable in many different healthcare and medical contexts. Moreover, the CoViD-19 pandemic acted as a stress test for many research endeavors, and revealed some limitations, especially in contexts where research results had an immediate impact on the social and healthcare habits of millions of people. As a result, the research community is called to perform a deep analysis of the steps already taken, and to re-think steps for the near and far future to capitalize on the lessons learned due to the pandemic. In this direction, on June 09th-11th, 2022, a group of twelve healthcare informatics researchers met in Rochester, MN, USA. This meeting was initiated by the Institute for Healthcare Informatics-IHI, and hosted by the Mayo Clinic. The goal of the meeting was to discuss and propose a research agenda for biomedical and health informatics for the next decade, in light of the changes and the lessons learned from the CoViD-19 pandemic. This article reports the main topics discussed and the conclusions reached. The intended readers of this paper, besides the biomedical and health informatics research community, are all those stakeholders in academia, industry, and government, who could benefit from the new research findings in biomedical and health informatics research. Indeed, research directions and social and policy implications are the main focus of the research agenda we propose, according to three levels: the care of individuals, the healthcare system view, and the population view.

Informative missingness: What can we learn from patterns in missing laboratory data in the electronic health record?

BACKGROUND: In electronic health records, patterns of missing laboratory test results could capture patients' course of disease as well as ​​reflect clinician's concerns or worries for possible conditions. These patterns are often understudied and overlooked. This study aims to identify informative patterns of missingness among laboratory data collected across 15 healthcare system sites in three countries for COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: We collected and analyzed demographic, diagnosis, and laboratory data for 69,939 patients with positive COVID-19 PCR tests across three countries from 1 January 2020 through 30 September 2021. We analyzed missing laboratory measurements across sites, missingness stratification by demographic variables, temporal trends of missingness, correlations between labs based on missingness indicators over time, and clustering of groups of labs based on their missingness/ordering pattern. RESULTS: With these analyses, we identified mapping issues faced in seven out of 15 sites. We also identified nuances in data collection and variable definition for the various sites. Temporal trend analyses may support the use of laboratory test result missingness patterns in identifying severe COVID-19 patients. Lastly, using missingness patterns, we determined relationships between various labs that reflect clinical behaviors. CONCLUSION: In this work, we use computational approaches to relate missingness patterns to hospital treatment capacity and highlight the heterogeneity of looking at COVID-19 over time and at multiple sites, where there might be different phases, policies, etc. Changes in missingness could suggest a change in a patient's condition, and patterns of missingness among laboratory measurements could potentially identify clinical outcomes. This allows sites to consider missing data as informative to analyses and help researchers identify which sites are better poised to study particular questions.

Long-term kidney function recovery and mortality after COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury: An international multi-centre observational cohort study.

Background: While acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in COVID-19, data on post-AKI kidney function recovery and the clinical factors associated with poor kidney function recovery is lacking. Methods: A retrospective multi-centre observational cohort study comprising 12,891 hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction from 1 January 2020 to 10 September 2020, and with at least one serum creatinine value 1-365 days prior to admission. Mortality and serum creatinine values were obtained up to 10 September 2021. Findings: Advanced age (HR 2.77, 95%CI 2.53-3.04, p < 0.0001), severe COVID-19 (HR 2.91, 95%CI 2.03-4.17, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 4.22, 95%CI 3.55-5.00, p < 0.0001), and ischemic heart disease (HR 1.26, 95%CI 1.14-1.39, p < 0.0001) were associated with worse mortality outcomes. AKI severity (KDIGO stage 3: HR 0.41, 95%CI 0.37-0.46, p < 0.0001) was associated with worse kidney function recovery, whereas remdesivir use (HR 1.34, 95%CI 1.17-1.54, p < 0.0001) was associated with better kidney function recovery. In a subset of patients without chronic kidney disease, advanced age (HR 1.38, 95%CI 1.20-1.58, p < 0.0001), male sex (HR 1.67, 95%CI 1.45-1.93, p < 0.0001), severe AKI (KDIGO stage 3: HR 11.68, 95%CI 9.80-13.91, p < 0.0001), and hypertension (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.10-1.36, p = 0.0002) were associated with post-AKI kidney function impairment. Furthermore, patients with COVID-19-associated AKI had significant and persistent elevations of baseline serum creatinine 125% or more at 180 days (RR 1.49, 95%CI 1.32-1.67) and 365 days (RR 1.54, 95%CI 1.21-1.96) compared to COVID-19 patients with no AKI. Interpretation: COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with higher mortality, and severe COVID-19-associated AKI was associated with worse long-term post-AKI kidney function recovery. Funding: Authors are supported by various funders, with full details stated in the acknowledgement section.

International electronic health record-derived post-acute sequelae profiles of COVID-19 patients.

The risk profiles of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) have not been well characterized in multi-national settings with appropriate controls. We leveraged electronic health record (EHR) data from 277 international hospitals representing 414,602 patients with COVID-19, 2.3 million control patients without COVID-19 in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and over 221 million diagnosis codes to systematically identify new-onset conditions enriched among patients with COVID-19 during the post-acute period. Compared to inpatient controls, inpatient COVID-19 cases were at significant risk for angina pectoris (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.09-1.55), heart failure (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.35), cognitive dysfunctions (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.31), and fatigue (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30). Relative to outpatient controls, outpatient COVID-19 cases were at risk for pulmonary embolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.58-2.76), venous embolism (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.17-1.54), atrial fibrillation (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13-1.50), type 2 diabetes (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.16-1.36) and vitamin D deficiency (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.30). Outpatient COVID-19 cases were also at risk for loss of smell and taste (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.90-3.06), inflammatory neuropathy (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.21-2.27), and cognitive dysfunction (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.33). The incidence of post-acute cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions decreased across time among inpatient cases while the incidence of cardiovascular, digestive, and metabolic conditions increased among outpatient cases. Our study, based on a federated international network, systematically identified robust conditions associated with PASC compared to control groups, underscoring the multifaceted cardiovascular and neurological phenotype profiles of PASC.

Changes in laboratory value improvement and mortality rates over the course of the pandemic: an international retrospective cohort study of hospitalised patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in international mortality rates and laboratory recovery rates during hospitalisation for patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 between the first wave (1 March to 30 June 2020) and the second wave (1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 83 178 hospitalised patients admitted between 7 days before or 14 days after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by Electronic Health Record, an international multihealthcare system collaborative of 288 hospitals in the USA and Europe. The laboratory recovery rates and mortality rates over time were compared between the two waves of the pandemic. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate within 28 days after hospitalisation stratified by predicted low, medium and high mortality risk at baseline. The secondary outcome was the average rate of change in laboratory values during the first week of hospitalisation. RESULTS: Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and laboratory values at admission were not significantly different between the first and second waves. The improvement in laboratory values over time was faster in the second wave compared with the first. The average C reactive protein rate of change was -4.72 mg/dL vs -4.14 mg/dL per day (p=0.05). The mortality rates within each risk category significantly decreased over time, with the most substantial decrease in the high-risk group (42.3% in March-April 2020 vs 30.8% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001) and a moderate decrease in the intermediate-risk group (21.5% in March-April 2020 vs 14.3% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Admission profiles of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection did not differ greatly between the first and second waves of the pandemic, but there were notable differences in laboratory improvement rates during hospitalisation. Mortality risks among patients with similar risk profiles decreased over the course of the pandemic. The improvement in laboratory values and mortality risk was consistent across multiple countries.

International comparisons of laboratory values from the 4CE collaborative to predict COVID-19 mortality.

Given the growing number of prediction algorithms developed to predict COVID-19 mortality, we evaluated the transportability of a mortality prediction algorithm using a multi-national network of healthcare systems. We predicted COVID-19 mortality using baseline commonly measured laboratory values and standard demographic and clinical covariates across healthcare systems, countries, and continents. Specifically, we trained a Cox regression model with nine measured laboratory test values, standard demographics at admission, and comorbidity burden pre-admission. These models were compared at site, country, and continent level. Of the 39,969 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (68.6% male), 5717 (14.3%) died. In the Cox model, age, albumin, AST, creatine, CRP, and white blood cell count are most predictive of mortality. The baseline covariates are more predictive of mortality during the early days of COVID-19 hospitalization. Models trained at healthcare systems with larger cohort size largely retain good transportability performance when porting to different sites. The combination of routine laboratory test values at admission along with basic demographic features can predict mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Importantly, this potentially deployable model differs from prior work by demonstrating not only consistent performance but also reliable transportability across healthcare systems in the US and Europe, highlighting the generalizability of this model and the overall approach.

Distinguishing Admissions Specifically for COVID-19 From Incidental SARS-CoV-2 Admissions: National Retrospective Electronic Health Record Study.

BACKGROUND: Admissions are generally classified as COVID-19 hospitalizations if the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. However, because 35% of SARS-CoV-2 infections are asymptomatic, patients admitted for unrelated indications with an incidentally positive test could be misclassified as a COVID-19 hospitalization. Electronic health record (EHR)-based studies have been unable to distinguish between a hospitalization specifically for COVID-19 versus an incidental SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. Although the need to improve classification of COVID-19 versus incidental SARS-CoV-2 is well understood, the magnitude of the problems has only been characterized in small, single-center studies. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed studies evaluating methods for improving classification. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to, first, quantify the frequency of incidental hospitalizations over the first 15 months of the pandemic in multiple hospital systems in the United States and, second, to apply electronic phenotyping techniques to automatically improve COVID-19 hospitalization classification. METHODS: From a retrospective EHR-based cohort in 4 US health care systems in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, a random sample of 1123 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients hospitalized from March 2020 to August 2021 was manually chart-reviewed and classified as "admitted with COVID-19" (incidental) versus specifically admitted for COVID-19 ("for COVID-19"). EHR-based phenotyping was used to find feature sets to filter out incidental admissions. RESULTS: EHR-based phenotyped feature sets filtered out incidental admissions, which occurred in an average of 26% of hospitalizations (although this varied widely over time, from 0% to 75%). The top site-specific feature sets had 79%-99% specificity with 62%-75% sensitivity, while the best-performing across-site feature sets had 71%-94% specificity with 69%-81% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive admissions were incidental. Straightforward EHR-based phenotypes differentiated admissions, which is important to assure accurate public health reporting and research.

Authorship Correction: International Changes in COVID-19 Clinical Trajectories Across 315 Hospitals and 6 Countries: Retrospective Cohort Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/31400.].

International Changes in COVID-19 Clinical Trajectories Across 315 Hospitals and 6 Countries: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have experienced 2 predominant waves of COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Comparing the clinical trajectories of patients hospitalized in separate waves of the pandemic enables further understanding of the evolving epidemiology, pathophysiology, and health care dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data from patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections hospitalized in participating health care systems representing 315 hospitals across 6 countries. We compared hospitalization rates, severe COVID-19 risk, and mean laboratory values between patients hospitalized during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: Using a federated approach, each participating health care system extracted patient-level clinical data on their first and second wave cohorts and submitted aggregated data to the central site. Data quality control steps were adopted at the central site to correct for implausible values and harmonize units. Statistical analyses were performed by computing individual health care system effect sizes and synthesizing these using random effect meta-analyses to account for heterogeneity. We focused the laboratory analysis on C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, fibrinogen, procalcitonin, D-dimer, and creatinine based on their reported associations with severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Data were available for 79,613 patients, of which 32,467 were hospitalized in the first wave and 47,146 in the second wave. The prevalence of male patients and patients aged 50 to 69 years decreased significantly between the first and second waves. Patients hospitalized in the second wave had a 9.9% reduction in the risk of severe COVID-19 compared to patients hospitalized in the first wave (95% CI 8.5%-11.3%). Demographic subgroup analyses indicated that patients aged 26 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years; male and female patients; and black patients had significantly lower risk for severe disease in the second wave than in the first wave. At admission, the mean values of CRP were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. On the seventh hospital day, the mean values of CRP, ferritin, fibrinogen, and procalcitonin were significantly lower in the second wave than in the first wave. In general, countries exhibited variable changes in laboratory testing rates from the first to the second wave. At admission, there was a significantly higher testing rate for D-dimer in France, Germany, and Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients hospitalized in the second wave were at significantly lower risk for severe COVID-19. This corresponded to mean laboratory values in the second wave that were more likely to be in typical physiological ranges on the seventh hospital day compared to the first wave. Our federated approach demonstrated the feasibility and power of harmonizing heterogeneous EHR data from multiple international health care systems to rapidly conduct large-scale studies to characterize how COVID-19 clinical trajectories evolve.

Managing Pandemics with Health Informatics.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize significant research contributions on managing pandemics with health informatics published in 2020. METHODS: An extensive search using PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles published in 2020 that examined health informatics systems used during the global COVID-19 pandemic. The selection process comprised three steps: 1) 15 candidate best papers were first selected by the two section editors; 2) external reviewers from internationally renowned research teams reviewed each candidate best paper; and 3) the final selection of three best papers was conducted by the editorial committee of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Yearbook. RESULTS: Selected best papers represent the important and diverse ways that health informatics supported clinical and public health responses to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Selected papers represent four groups of papers: 1) Use of analytics to screen, triage, and manage patients; 2) Use of telehealth and remote monitoring to manage patients and populations; 3) Use of EHR systems and administrative systems to manage internal operations of a hospital or health system; and 4) Use of informatics methods and systems by public health authorities to capture, store, manage, and visualize population-level data and information. CONCLUSION: Health informatics played a critical role in managing patients and populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care and public health organizations both leveraged available information systems and standards to rapidly identify cases, triage infected individuals, and monitor population trends. The selected best papers represent a fraction of the body of knowledge stemming from COVID-19, most of which is focused on pandemic response. Future work will be needed to help the world recover from the pandemic and strengthen the health information infrastructure in preparation for the next pandemic.

Why Is the Electronic Health Record So Challenging for Research and Clinical Care?

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) has become increasingly ubiquitous. At the same time, health professionals have been turning to this resource for access to data that is needed for the delivery of health care and for clinical research. There is little doubt that the EHR has made both of these functions easier than earlier days when we relied on paper-based clinical records. Coupled with modern database and data warehouse systems, high-speed networks, and the ability to share clinical data with others are large number of challenges that arguably limit the optimal use of the EHR OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to provide an exhaustive reference for those who use the EHR in clinical and research contexts, but also for health information systems professionals as they design, implement, and maintain EHR systems. METHODS: This study includes a panel of 24 biomedical informatics researchers, information technology professionals, and clinicians, all of whom have extensive experience in design, implementation, and maintenance of EHR systems, or in using the EHR as clinicians or researchers. All members of the panel are affiliated with Penn Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and have experience with a variety of different EHR platforms and systems and how they have evolved over time. RESULTS: Each of the authors has shared their knowledge and experience in using the EHR in a suite of 20 short essays, each representing a specific challenge and classified according to a functional hierarchy of interlocking facets such as usability and usefulness, data quality, standards, governance, data integration, clinical care, and clinical research. CONCLUSION: We provide here a set of perspectives on the challenges posed by the EHR to clinical and research users.

Ideas for how informaticians can get involved with COVID-19 research

[...]there is a possibility that some of the observed genetic differences may be artifacts of this process. [...]the well-known CCR5-delta32 allele has a variation that protects individuals who have been exposed to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV);they are protected from developing AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) [10]. Because of this, researchers are gearing up to study the genomes of COVID-19 positive patients in comparison to controls (COVID-19-negative patients). Capacity and resource management tools can generate projects based on regional infection counts and current patient admissions to estimate the number of patients that will require hospitalization, intensive care unit beds, medications, and mechanical ventilation. Informaticians can support these efforts by 1) educating patients and care providers about data science resources and electronic health record (EHR) platforms for building point-of-care solutions, 2) joining the open-source community efforts to develop these technologies, and 3) volunteering with the information services divisions within their healthcare organizations to deploy telehealth tools and engage in patient management projects.

What Every Reader Should Know About Studies Using Electronic Health Record Data but May Be Afraid to Ask.

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.