Margaret A French, Paul Hartman, Heather A Hayes, Leah Ling, John Magel, Anne Thackeray
{"title":"观察性医疗成果合作模式通用数据模型中的理疗评估覆盖范围。","authors":"Margaret A French, Paul Hartman, Heather A Hayes, Leah Ling, John Magel, Anne Thackeray","doi":"10.1055/a-2401-3688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coverage of physical therapy assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model common data model.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret A French, Paul Hartman, Heather A Hayes, Leah Ling, John Magel, Anne Thackeray\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2401-3688\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2401-3688\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2401-3688","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:高价值护理的目的是在降低成本的同时提高对患者有意义的治疗效果,而通过通用数据模型(CDMs)(如观察性医疗结果合作模型(OMOP))对各医疗系统的数据进行整理则可加快这一进程。这些 CDM 中必须包括有意义的患者结果,如身体功能。然而,物理治疗评估在 OMOP CDM 中的覆盖范围尚不明确:研究神经和骨科疾病中使用的物理治疗评估在 OMOP CDM 中的覆盖程度:方法:确定评估项目后,由两个评审小组独立将神经和骨科评估项目映射到 OMOP CDM 中。我们根据两位评审员、一位评审员而非另一位评审员或两位评审员均未绘制的评估数量来量化评审员团队内部的一致意见。然后,审稿人团队对分歧进行协调,之后我们检查了每项评估的一致性和概念 ID 编号的平均数量:结果:在 81 项神经系统评估中,48.1%(39/81)的评估最初由两位审稿人绘制,9.9%(8/81)的评估由一位审稿人绘制,但另一位审稿人未绘制,42%(34/81)的评估未绘制。经过核对后,46.9%(38/81)的数据由两位评审员绘制,53.1%(43/81)的数据未绘制。在 79 项骨科评估中,46.8%(37/79)最初由两名评审员绘制,12.7%(10/79)由一名评审员绘制但另一名评审员未绘制,48.1%(38/79)未绘制。经过核对后,48.1%(38/79)的评估由两位评审员绘制,51.9%(41/79)的评估未绘制。大多数被映射的评估都有一个以上的概念 ID 号(每个神经科和骨科评估的概念 ID 号分别为 2.2±1.3 和 4.3±4.4):结论:OMOP CDM包含一些建议用于神经系统和骨科疾病的评估,但许多评估有多个概念ID。在 OMOP CDM 中纳入更多的功能评估并创建映射指南将提高我们在大型数据集中纳入功能数据的能力。
Coverage of physical therapy assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model common data model.
Background: High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.
Objective: Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.
Methods: After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.
Results: Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).
Conclusions: The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.
期刊介绍:
ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.