RE: [gpc-informatics] #80: assessment of GPC vs. data privacy and security standards
Sounds like a good plan. I'll update milestone 3.9 for Jan 15. Thanks, John. From: GPC Informatics [d...@madmode.com] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:20 AM To: Dan Connolly Cc: tachina...@wisc.edu; m...@wisc.edu; phillip.ree...@utsouthwestern.edu; John Steinmetz Subject: Re: [gpc-informatics] #80: assessment of GPC vs. data privacy and security standards #80: assessment of GPC vs. data privacy and security standards --+- Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: dconnolly Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: data-sec-check Component: data-sharing | Resolution: Keywords: security | Blocked By: 79 Blocking:| --+- Changes (by dconnolly): * cc: jsteinmetz (added) * priority: minor = major * status: new = assigned Comment: Tom, Thanks for the TF update (in #79). Is the draft to the ~80% to where we can start to use it to make an assessment plan? Presuming it is, would you please sketch a plan? Or ask for volunteers in gpc-dev and follow up on a weekly call if necessary? Based on the Nov 21 SC vote plan, I'm scheduling milestone:data-sec-check (aka PMO milestone 3.9) for mid January. John S., please acknowledge. -- Ticket URL: http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/80#comment:4 gpc-informatics http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/ Greater Plains Network - Informatics ___ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
Re: [gpc-informatics] #178: determine whether last.visit is the last fulfilled visit or the last scheduled visit
#178: determine whether last.visit is the last fulfilled visit or the last scheduled visit ---+ Reporter: mish | Owner: hhickman Type: problem| Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: data-quality2 Component: data-stds | Resolution: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ---+ Changes (by dconnolly): * owner: dconnolly = hhickman * status: new = assigned Comment: Hubert, How are you determining visit type from Epic clarity data? Would you please share your SQL code? (or point me/us to it, if you already have) -- Ticket URL: http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/178#comment:1 gpc-informatics http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/ Greater Plains Network - Informatics ___ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
Re: [gpc-informatics] #141: differentiate well-child visits, sick visits, and chronic visits (utilization)
On 10/17/2014 10:57 AM, GPC Informatics wrote: #141: differentiate well-child visits, sick visits, and chronic visits (utilization) + Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: bokov Type: design-issue| Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: data-quality2 Component: data-stds | Resolution: Keywords: obesity-cohort | Blocked By: Blocking: 33 | + Changes (by dconnolly): * owner: nathan.wilson = bokov * priority: minor = major * milestone: = data-quality2 Comment: Alex, I have to some extent lost track of whether/when this is required for the upcoming survey work (KeyGoalTracking#wt-survey). Would you please consult with the obesity group and clarify? I would say that this is a question about whether it is possible to construct a query that on this information, and the answer is yes. It also asks whether it's possible to pivot on the results of this query by visit count, and the answer is yes but not built into I2B2. The well-vs-sick is an issue that is still being discussed within the obesity group. One point of view is that no patient should be excluded. Another point of view is that patients should be excluded by a few proxy indicators (e.g. availability of height, specialty of the clinic they are visiting). A third point of view is to explicitly exclude active diagnoses and medications that are known to influence BMI but are not themselves considered to be co-morbidities of interest to the obesity group. ___ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
Re: [gpc-informatics] #157: CDM 2.x review: outpatient medication dispense etc.
#157: CDM 2.x review: outpatient medication dispense etc. ---+ Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: lv Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: data-domains2 Component: data-stds | Resolution: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ---+ Changes (by dconnolly): * owner: jcampbell = lv * priority: minor = major * milestone: = data-domains2 Comment: So we have [http://listserv.kumc.edu/pipermail/gpc-dev/2014q4/000638.html a new CDM 2.x draft]. Is it responsive to the concerns we discussed 23 Sep (comment:1)? Laurel, would you either - review the draft and let us know, or - find a volunteer or two to do so in or before the Nov 21 meeting? -- Ticket URL: http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/157#comment:6 gpc-informatics http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/ Greater Plains Network - Informatics ___ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
Re: [gpc-informatics] #157: CDM 2.x review: outpatient medication dispense etc.
#157: CDM 2.x review: outpatient medication dispense etc. ---+ Reporter: dconnolly | Owner: preeder Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: major | Milestone: data-domains2 Component: data-stds | Resolution: Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ---+ Changes (by dconnolly): * owner: lv = preeder Comment: Phillip, Between Jim C.'s holiday and the fact that he wasn't with us on the Sep 23 call, I'm not sure whether our concerns were relayed to the DSSNI TF. Do you have a handy way to check? Maybe it doesn't much matter, but it would be nice to know whether they have already considered this input. -- Ticket URL: http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/157#comment:8 gpc-informatics http://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/ Greater Plains Network - Informatics ___ Gpc-dev mailing list Gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu http://listserv.kumc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gpc-dev
RE: General questions about registries
Yes, well the idea is pretty lame ☺ I’m glad you know what I’m talking about. Have you guys implemented this for a particular patient cohort? James McClay, MS, MD, FACEP Associate Professor, Emergency Medicine Chair, Biomedical Informatics Graduate Program University of Nebraska Medical Center 402-559-3587, jmcc...@unmc.edu ___ The information in this e-mail is privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the addressee(s) above. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please delete it and immediately contact the sender. From: Dan Connolly [mailto:dconno...@kumc.edu] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:09 PM To: McClay, James C; gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu Subject: RE: General questions about registries It's sufficiently obvious that our paper was rejected for insufficient novelty. ;-) But that's exactly what the HERON i2b2/REDCap stuff is all about. Here's ticket comment from April about SIENEhttps://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/ticket/87#comment:16 again: We wrote up a manuscript a while back. The submission was declined, but we've had enough interest that we've decided to just share it. We're in the process of adding it to KUMC's digital archivehttp://archie.kumc.edu/; meanwhile, I've attached it to this ticket in editable (MS Word) formathttps://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/attachment/ticket/87/Adagarla2014-Joint-Summits-submissionRusscomments8.docxhttps://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/raw-attachment/ticket/87/Adagarla2014-Joint-Summits-submissionRusscomments8.docx and fixed (PDF) formathttps://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/attachment/ticket/87/1861442_File02.pdfhttps://informatics.gpcnetwork.org/trac/Project/raw-attachment/ticket/87/1861442_File02.pdf. * SEINE: Methods for Electronic Data Capture and Integrated Data Repository Synthesis with Patient Registry Use Cases Bhargav Adagarla1, Daniel W. Connolly1, Tamara M. McMahon1, Manikandan Nair1, Lisa D. VanHoose3, Priyanka Sharma2, Linda J. D’Silva3, Lemuel R. Waitman1 1Division of Medical Informatics, 2Department of Internal Medicine, 3Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS Abstract Integrated Data Repositories (IDR) allow clinical research to leverage electronic health records (EHR) and other data sources while Electronic Data Capture (EDC) applications often support manually maintained patient registries. Using i2b2 and REDCap, (IDR and EDC platforms respectively) we have developed methods that integrate IDR and EDC strengths supporting: 1) data delivery from the IDR as ready-to-use registries to exploit the annotation and data collection capabilities unique to EDC applications; 2) integrating EDC managed registries into data repositories allows investigators to use hypothesis generation and cohort discovery methods. This round-trip integration can lower lag between cohort discovery and establishing a registry. Investigators can also periodically augment their registry cohort as the IDR is enriched with additional data elements, data sources, and patients. We describe our open-source automated methods and provide three example registry uses cases for these methods: triple negative breast cancer, vertiginous syndrome, cancer distress. -- Dan From: gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edumailto:gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu [gpc-dev-boun...@listserv.kumc.edu] on behalf of McClay, James C [jmcc...@unmc.edu] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 2:58 PM To: gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edumailto:gpc-dev@listserv.kumc.edu Subject: General questions about registries GPC informatics experts: I have a number of investigators requesting the ability to have registry type functionality from our i2b2 environment. I will use COPD for an example but we need a generalizable solution available to any investigative team. They would like to tag patients participating in their registry (for example consented COPD patients), capture some patient reported outcomes (perhaps quality of life), and then enter additional information that either isn’t in the EHR or isn’t in coded form (i.e. specific measurements from the Chest CT in COPD patients.) Russ, I know the Heron network keeps track of patients who have consented to participate in general but this would be for specific patients who have consented to participate and are followed by a clinic. My thought is to add a flag in i2b2 that would ID these patients, capture PRO through REDCap, provide a mechanism in REDCap to display reports such as Echo or CT, provide the investigator a form for capturing structured data and then link that back to i2b2. I know we have discussed NLP but I still don’t think it reliable enough for this setting. My question: is the patently obvious how to do this or do we need to do some development? Jim James McClay, MS, MD, FACEP Associate Professor, Emergency
