Core Standards of the EUBIROD Project. Defining a European Diabetes Data Dictionary for Clinical Audit and Healthcare Delivery.

BACKGROUND: A set of core diabetes indicators were identified in a clinical review of current evidence for the EUBIROD project. In order to allow accurate comparisons of diabetes indicators, a standardised currency for data storage and aggregation was required. We aimed to define a robust European data dictionary with appropriate clinical definitions that can be used to analyse diabetes outcomes and provide the foundation for data collection from existing electronic health records for diabetes. METHODS: Existing clinical datasets used by 15 partner institutions across Europe were collated and common data items analysed for consistency in terms of recording, data definition and units of measurement. Where necessary, data mappings and algorithms were specified in order to allow partners to meet the standard definitions. A series of descriptive elements were created to document metadata for each data item, including recording, consistency, completeness and quality. RESULTS: While datasets varied in terms of consistency, it was possible to create a common standard that could be used by all. The minimum dataset defined 53 data items that were classified according to their feasibility and validity. Mappings and standardised definitions were used to create an electronic directory for diabetes care, providing the foundation for the EUBIROD data analysis repository, also used to implement the diabetes registry and model of care for Cyprus. CONCLUSIONS: The development of data dictionaries and standards can be used to improve the quality and comparability of health information. A data dictionary has been developed to be compatible with other existing data sources for diabetes, within and beyond Europe.

Privacy impact assessment in the design of transnational public health information systems: the BIRO project.

OBJECTIVES: To foster the development of a privacy-protective, sustainable cross-border information system in the framework of a European public health project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A targeted privacy impact assessment was implemented to identify the best architecture for a European information system for diabetes directly tapping into clinical registries. Four steps were used to provide input to software designers and developers: a structured literature search, analysis of data flow scenarios or options, creation of an ad hoc questionnaire and conduction of a Delphi procedure. RESULTS: The literature search identified a core set of relevant papers on privacy (n = 11). Technicians envisaged three candidate system architectures, with associated data flows, to source an information flow questionnaire that was submitted to the Delphi panel for the selection of the best architecture. A detailed scheme envisaging an "aggregation by group of patients" was finally chosen, based upon the exchange of finely tuned summary tables. CONCLUSIONS: Public health information systems should be carefully engineered only after a clear strategy for privacy protection has been planned, to avoid breaching current regulations and future concerns and to optimise the development of statistical routines. The BIRO (Best Information Through Regional Outcomes) project delivers a specific method of privacy impact assessment that can be conveniently used in similar situations across Europe.