Aren't computers great? They mangled these notes pretty badly.

I'm attaching clean copies in word and HTML formats.

-- 
Dan

Attachment: GPCMeetingNotesforMarch4th2014.docx
Description: GPCMeetingNotesforMarch4th2014.docx

Title: GPC Meeting Notes for March 4th 2014

Meeting Notes for 3/4/2014

  1. Convene, take roll, review records and plan next meeting
  • ​Meeting ID and access code: 686-845-717 call +1 (267) 507-0008
  • Scribe: from MCW. Here's hoping we can use a google doc again.
  • roll: all 10 DevTeams represented? MCW, WISC, KUMC, UNMC, UMN, UTHSCSA, MCRF, UTSW, CMH (-IOWA)
  • RESOLVED: to accept minutes of February 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM as a true record, with thanks to Tom Mish. missing from web archive. darn.
  1. Review of standardization principles and project plan from Hackathon #10
  • Q: Are the Data Quality Plans OK AS proposed ?
  • Objective 1.1 of Data Standardization Worklist. Just need to to have I2B2 Running.
  • sharing Ontology work products
  • Dan: we don’t require that the contributions to babel be publicly available
  • Nate: Cerner / CMH prefers that their Ontology files not be publically available .
  • Right now someone has to log into Babel to see the ontology.
  • Q: Public / Private sharing of data discussion
  • PCORI central desktop for sharing ?
  • New repository for sharing ?
  • A: Group Approves trying PCORI central desktop approach.
  • Dan to share CSV files from babel with GPC via PCORI central desktop
  • Russ to contact John Steinmetz to set up accounts. 
  1. Data quality: sharing authorization #69
  • Russ: Please share discussion results / documentation with the group as you work thru the issues at your institution.
  • (who asked?) examples of quality metrics? getting approval is easier if I can be more specific about what quality metrics look like
  • % duplicate MRNs
  • % missing dates of birth
  • % missing race info
  • data that gets lost from Epic to i2b2 in ETL
  • % lab tests without a LOINC code
  • Jim to draft a policy development document that will outline what we’re trying to have each of the sites develop, including these examples
  • Aaron: hard to know what to look for until we start digging, so let’s not give the idea that this list is exhaustive
  • several sites have discussions in progress; sounds like a few more weeks ‘till they conclude. JRC: How long exactly?
  • Tom M.: I have to deal with a steering committee that meets only once a month
  • Jim: so 2 months? March 1 to May 1?
  • MCRF, UMN: yes
  1. data quality design issue #70
  2. Agenda discussion for Quality Assurance subcommittee and project planning
  • Russ to convene meeting
  1. HackathonOne#Records review. no changes requested.
  2. #73 de-id plan
  • Reeder: yes, I’m starting to think about a document… in sum: HIPAA de-identified data set. remove 18 identifiers; date shifting up to 365 days on a per-patient basis; 3 digit zip codes except where there are less than 20K in there… age 90 stuff…
  • Reeder: is the 365 day shifting technique “approved”? I know everybody’s doing something like that
  • Dan: that’s my understanding; everybody’s doing something like that, but there’s no officially approved approach
  • Reeder: might need a instance mapping table
  • Reeder: tval_char can be tricky. I’m inclined to avoid free-text deidentification
  • JRC: age at which you made a diagnosis of breast cancer… I expect DOB won’t be in our de-identified data set
  • Reeder: we’ll have the shifted DOB, so we can compute age at visit etc.
  • JRC: I’ve been looking at LOINC and [missed] for age
  • Bokov: is the concern that age > 90 reduces the set of patients to such a small number that the risk of re-identification is unacceptable?
  • Dan/others: yes, presumably
  • Bokov: how about a per-visit random offset of +/- 7 days?
  • Russ: we can survey current approach; in HERON, we change birthdays of people over 90.
  • DanC: we’re pretty far into the details; can we take this to email?
  • Reeder: I’ll send out something for review.
  • Nate: the programmatic changes to scramble is something we shouldn’t share publicly
  • Bokov: we needn’t rely on security by obscurity; the encryption keys and random offsets provide the privacy

_______________________________________________
Gpc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev

Reply via email to