I think the issue of provider identification across sites is one to discuss as to overhead for our standardization effort worklist. Our 10 sites are very unlikely to have duplicate reports of observations, but within PCORI and when we network hundreds of sites, increasingly interoperable passage of clinical data between systems will lead to duplicate reporting of an observation. This is true in Public Health all the time today. Mitigating this issue suggests that NPI for provider and institution should be considered although they may have to be removed from the anonymized repository. This will not have much utility in the short term but we should be discussing it for optimal design of a network that will ultimately serve many researchers, our public health people included.
Jim ________________________________ From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [[email protected]] on behalf of Russ Waitman [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PCORI Information Model draft_v1.2 Agreed. I could imagine long term areas where the provider dimension may be relevant for clustered trials of a certain type but for this phase, I'm not sure we'll need to populate it at all. I am not sure there's really any i2b2 functionality that uses it though I could imagine some cool things in the future, but again, for our focus, not needed yet. Russ ________________________________ From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [[email protected]] on behalf of Dan Connolly [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 8:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PCORI Information Model draft_v1.2 Can you elaborate on what you mean by "No provider identification across sites"? The i2b2 data model is a blank slate w.r.t. identifying providers. In fact, the i2b2 data model per se doesn't even specify how to identify diagnoses across sites; the ICD9 terms provided in the i2b2 software distribution is an example/demo terminology, known to be incomplete (Mike Mendis, Sep 20 2010<https://community.i2b2.org/wiki/display/community/AUG+Email+2010_Jul-Dec>). It's not clear to me how provider identification is relevant to our work at all. Have the ALS, breast cancer, or Obesity investigators said that this is an important data element for characterizing the respective cohort? -- Dan ________________________________ From: Dan Connolly Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 8:44 PM To: Campbell, James R; [email protected] Subject: RE: PCORI Information Model draft_v1.2 Jim, can you elaborate on what you mean by "Results data limited to numeric, text; Coded results will be needed for observables"? On the "Vitals & other observables" slide, we show a coded result for "Walking", no? -- Dan ________________________________ From: Dan Connolly Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 8:40 PM To: Campbell, James R; [email protected] Subject: RE: PCORI Information Model draft_v1.2 It looks like the attachment might be too big for the mail archive service, so I put a copy in google docs for convenience: * PCORI Information Model_draft_1.2<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1smiU-oDS8X6ZX8bWrViiZcOqp7RyvjsmVvZd6kQAL8c/edit?usp=sharing> ________________________________ From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [[email protected]] on behalf of Campbell, James R [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: PCORI Information Model draft_v1.2 Thanks to Nathan for pointing our that the star schema data model posted from the JAMIA paper does not align with the documentation in the current i2b2 release. I revised the draft slide set for discussion this week and aligned the 'out-of'-the-box' view with the documentation for release 1.7 on the i2b2 web site. Reading the documentation a bit further, I began to realize that our standardization discussion will need to include the i2b2 scheme load to assure the ontology versions align. Jim The information in this e-mail may be privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender.
