I’m trying as best as possible to not have to deploy completely separate ETLs for ACT,GPC, and my local i2b2. I’m using the i2b2 ontology to handle the differences between the various terminologies. This allows me to keep the data consistent between my various i2b2 instances and use views, vs having to duplicate the data 3 times. One each for Local, ACT, and GPC.
There are some difference and times where we have had to deploy data for one project and not the others, and in those cases, we just isolate the terminology to the project that needs it. So far, that has worked fairly well for us at UTSW. Phillip From: Dan Connolly <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:01 AM To: "Meeks-Johnson, Jim" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: GPC and ACT synergy Good question. KUMC hasn't crossed into ACT and SHRINE yet, though it's on our horizon. I'm pretty sure some GPC sites have, though; I'll let them chime in for themselves. My impression is that no, a separate isolated i2b2 is not needed. We ask that sites share as much of our ETL processes as is manageable, though; we recommend HERON<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/DevTeams#heron-kumc>, or at least pieces such as TumorRegistry<https://informatics.kumc.edu/work/wiki/TumorRegistry>. We're also using RXNorm, ICD9, and LOINC in GPC, though there's more than one way to integrate those into i2b2. Some parts of our design are more stable and uniform across GPC than others (DataRepositoryManagement<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/DataRepositoryManagement> is probaby the best summary and/or starting place). I see you have an account on babel<http://babel.gpcnetwork.org/>, so you can poke around whenever you like. It'll be great to have stuff from your site any time; ACT style stuff is more than welcome. Another opportunity for comparison is a demo in one of our weekly gotomeetings<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/SoftwareDev#next-agenda>. We've had many of the other GPC DevTeams<https://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/wiki/DevTeams> do that. (We even have recordings of a few, though they're not terribly handy; here's hoping for time to index them on that DevTeams page.) We plan to have UNMC talk about their CDM ETL on the 29th, but any week after that might work fine. -- Dan ________________________________ From: Meeks-Johnson, Jim [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:38 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Dan Connolly Subject: GPC and ACT synergy Hi, all, Indiana University is pleased to be joining GPC as part of phase II! We are already part of the SHRINE-based ACT consortium, as I believe some of you are also. We build a separate instance of I2B2 using RXNORM, ICD9 and LOINC from our HIE for ACT. We wondered if you had any suggestions or guidance on best practice for leveraging this into GPC/CDM, or if a separate isolated I2B2 and ETL is needed for GPC. What are the rest of you doing about this? This may be explained in the rich technical documentation you have... if so could you point me to the right resources? Thanks, Jim Meeks-Johnson Principle Engineer ________________________________ UT Southwestern Medical Center The future of medicine, today.
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
