Jim, If you prefer to keep isolated i2b2 systems, you could implement database swaps as a solution. We've recently installed SHRINE with other sites in Wisconsin and the systems are a bit different, so we use database swaps now at UW Health (as of a month ago). We chose this strategy not because it's better, but because the requirements vary, our i2b2 versions vary slightly, data governance reasons, and other reasons.
Do you spend more energy on complicating the ontologies and/or data? Or do you spend more energy on complicating the ETL code? Or do you spend more energy on complicating the release process? There's a fine line of when you have more risks. These risks will change overtime with a health care organization depending on the politics, but right now, database swaps work well for us. Keith Wanta UW Health From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 10:01 AM To: Meeks-Johnson, Jim; [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]] 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
_______________________________________________ Gpc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
