Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1-4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study.

Background: In the following manuscript, we describe the detailed protocol for a mixed-methods, observational case study conducted to identify and evaluate existing data-related processes and challenges currently faced by trauma centers in a rural state. The data will be utilized to assess the impact of these challenges on registry data collection. Methods: The study relies on a series of interviews and observations to collect data from trauma registry staff at level 1-4 trauma centers across the state of Arkansas. A think-aloud protocol will be used to facilitate observations to gather keystroke-level modeling data and insight into site processes and workflows for collecting and submitting data to the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Informal, semi-structured interviews will follow the observation period to assess the participant's perspective on current processes, potential barriers to data collection or submission to the registry, and recommendations for improvement. Each session will be recorded, and de-identified transcripts and session notes will be used for analysis. Keystroke level modeling data derived from observations will be extracted and analyzed quantitatively to determine time spent performing end-to-end registry-related activities. Qualitative data from interviews will be reviewed and coded by 2 independent reviewers following a thematic analysis methodology. Each set of codes will then be adjudicated by the reviewers using a consensus-driven approach to extrapolate the final set of themes. Discussion: We will utilize a mixed methods approach to understand existing processes and barriers to data collection for the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Anticipated results will provide a baseline measure of the data collection and submission processes at various trauma centers across the state. We aim to assess strengths and limitations of existing processes and identify existing barriers to interoperability. These results will provide first-hand knowledge on existing practices for the trauma registry use case and will provide quantifiable data that can be utilized in future research to measure outcomes of future process improvement efforts. The potential implications of this study can form the basis for identifying potential solutions for streamlining data collection, exchange, and utilization of trauma registry data for clinical practice, public health, and clinical and translational research.

Measuring the Coverage of the HL7® FHIR® Standard in Supporting Data Acquisition for 3 Public Health Registries.

With the increasing need for timely submission of data to state and national public health registries, current manual approaches to data acquisition and submission are insufficient. In clinical practice, federal regulations are now mandating the use of data messaging standards, i.e., the Health Level Seven (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) standard, to facilitate the electronic exchange of clinical (patient) data. In both research and public health practice, we can also leverage FHIR® ‒ and the infrastructure already in place for supporting exchange of clinical practice data ‒ to enable seamless exchange between the electronic medical record and public health registries. That said, in order to understand the current utility of FHIR® for supporting the public health use case, we must first measure the extent to which the standard resources map to the required registry data elements. Thus, using a systematic mapping approach, we evaluated the level of completeness of the FHIR® standard to support data collection for three public health registries (Trauma, Stroke, and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program). On average, approximately 80% of data elements were available in FHIR® (71%, 77%, and 92%, respectively; inter-annotator agreement rates: 82%, 78%, and 72%, respectively). This tells us that there is the potential for significant automation to support EHR-to-Registry data exchange, which will reduce the amount of manual, error-prone processes and ensure higher data quality. Further, identification of the remaining 20% of data elements that are "not mapped" will enable us to improve the standard and develop profiles that will better fit the registry data model.

Protocol for the Evaluation of Data-Related Processes and Challenges at Level 1-4 Trauma Centers in Arkansas: A Mixed-Methods Case Study.

Background: In the following manuscript, we describe the detailed protocol for a mixed-methods, observational case study conducted to identify and evaluate existing data-related processes and challenges currently faced by trauma centers in a rural state. The data will be utilized to assess the impact of these challenges on registry data collection. Methods: The study relies on a series of interviews and observations to collect data from trauma registry staff at level 1-4 trauma centers across the state of Arkansas. A think-aloud protocol will be used to facilitate observations as a means to gather keystroke-level modeling data and insight into site processes and workflows for collecting and submitting data to the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Informal, semi-structured interviews will follow the observation period to assess the participant's perspective on current processes, potential barriers to data collection or submission to the registry, and recommendations for improvement. Each session will be recorded and de-identified transcripts and session notes will be used for analysis. Keystroke level modeling data derived from observations will be extracted and analyzed quantitatively to determine time spent performing end-to-end registry-related activities. Qualitative data from interviews will be reviewed and coded by 2 independent reviewers following a thematic analysis methodology. Each set of codes will then be adjudicated by the reviewers using a consensus-driven approach to extrapolate the final set of themes. Discussion: We will utilize a mixed methods approach to understand existing processes and barriers to data collection for the Arkansas Trauma Registry. Anticipated results will provide a baseline measure of the data collection and submission processes at various trauma centers across the state. We aim to assess strengths and limitations of existing processes and identify existing barriers to interoperability. These results will provide first-hand knowledge on existing practices for the trauma registry use case and will provide quantifiable data that can be utilized in future research to measure outcomes of future process improvement efforts. The potential implications of this study can form the basis for identifying potential solutions for streamlining data collection, exchange, and utilization of trauma registry data for clinical practice, public health, and clinical and translational research.

Preprocessing to Address Bias in Healthcare Data.

Multimorbidity, having a diagnosis of two or more chronic conditions, increases as people age. It is a predictor used in clinical decision-making, but underdiagnosis in underserved populations produces bias in the data that support algorithms used in the healthcare processes. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems could produce inaccurate predictions if patients have multiple unknown conditions. Rural patients are more likely to be underserved and also more likely to have multiple chronic conditions. In this study, data collected during the course of care in a centrally located academic hospital, multimorbidity decreased with rurality. This decrease suggests a bias against rural patients for algorithms that rely on diagnosis information to calculate risk. To test preprocessing to address bias in healthcare data, we measured the amount of discrimination in favor of metropolitan patients in the classification of multimorbidity. We built a model using the biased data to test optimum classification performance. A new unbiased training data set and model were created and tested against unaltered validation data. The new model's classification performance on unaltered data did not diverge significantly from the performance of the initial optimal model trained on the biased data suggesting that bias can be removed with preprocessing.

Development of Data Validation Rules for Therapeutic Area Standard Data Elements in Four Mental Health Domains to Improve the Quality of FDA Submissions.

Data standards are now required for many submissions to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The required standard for submission of clinical data is the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Submission Data Tabulation Model (SDTM). Currently, 45 business rules and 115 associated validation rules exist for SDTM data. However, such rules have not yet been developed for therapeutic area data standards developed under the last reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). The objective of this effort was to develop data validation rules for new therapeutic area data standards in four mental health domains, assess the metadata required to associate such rules with standard data elements, and assess the level of data validation possible for therapeutic area data elements.