The former. Each site runs their own i2b2. Only very limited data sets (i.e. query results) get federated.
I actually wrote a much longer response before I understood your question. I'll go ahead and share it... What we have to do is cohort characterization and, eventually, CER trials. We're still figuring out how we get there. The process is in some ways more predictable if we all use the same ETL process, i2b2 version, etc.; but even then, there are EMR workflow differences that color the data. How much variability we can deal between sites as we aggregate data is not yet clear to me either, but our plan has human honest brokers at each site in the process, so we can accommodate quite a bit of variability, at least initially, at the cost of effort on behalf of the honest brokers and data analysts: The choice of i2b2 as a data repository platform suggests using SHRINE7 for multi-site integration. SHRINE, however, emphasizes queries that are fully automated, gives simple counts as results, and requires fully automated terminology alignment. Creating a high functioning PCORI network across the GPC requires queries with rich data sets as results. We also recognize healthcare systems EHRs’ Meaningful Use alignment is a process unfolding during the study period, so our approach to terminology alignment requires an incremental approach involving a feedback loop of conducting queries and adjusting terminology mappings. Also, in order to reduce concerns from healthcare systems as we build trust, we believe the added step of mediation by honest brokers, rather than full automation during this initial project period, is the appropriate way to move forward. (from RC11, also available as DataSecurity<http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/DataSecurity>) We've already begun the iterative feedback loop... we've got 8 queries in the babel<http://babel.gpcnetwork.org/> SHARED folder. -- Dan ________________________________ From: Greater Plains Collaborative Software Development [[email protected]] on behalf of Justin Dale [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 4:04 PM To: [email protected] Subject: GPC and i2b2 I hope this isn't a stupid question but there is something I'm not entirely clear on: Is the goal to have each GPC site running the same version of i2b2 with a standard data model and terminologies? or Each site commits to transforming their data to the agreed upon model and terminologies, send that data to KU who will act as the "hub", and have one version of i2b2 for the entire GPC network? At Minnesota we'll soon be implementing medications into i2b2 and I'm trying to understand how that impacts our commitments to the GPC. Thanks for you responses. Regards, Justin Dale Manager - Research Development and Support University of Minnesota Academic Health Center - Office of Information Systems Phone: 612.624.9747 Fax: 612.624.7458 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
