Linking Patient Encounters across Primary and Ancillary Electronic Health Record Systems: A Comparison of Two Approaches.

Background: To achieve scientific goals, researchers often require integration of data from a primary electronic health record (EHR) system and one or more ancillary EHR systems used during the same patient care encounter. Although studies have demonstrated approaches for linking patient identity records across different EHR systems, little is known about linking patient encounter records across primary and ancillary EHR systems. Objectives: We compared a patients-first approach versus an encounters-first approach for linking patient encounter records across multiple EHR systems. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of 348,904 patients with 533,283 encounters from 2010 to 2020 across our institution's primary EHR system and an ancillary EHR system used in perioperative settings. For the patients-first approach and the encounters-first approach, we measured the number of patient and encounter links created as well as runtime. Results: While the patients-first approach linked 43% of patients and 49% of encounters, the encounters-first approach linked 98% of patients and 100% of encounters. The encounters-first approach was 20 times faster than the patients-first approach for linking patients and 33% slower for linking encounters. Conclusion: Findings suggest that common patient and encounter identifiers shared among EHR systems via automated interfaces may be clinically useful but not "research-ready" and thus require an encounters-first linkage approach to enable secondary use for scientific purposes. Based on our search, this study is among the first to demonstrate approaches for linking patient encounters across multiple EHR systems. Enterprise data warehouse for research efforts elsewhere may benefit from an encounters-first approach.

Implementation of a commercial federated network of electronic health record data to enable sponsor-initiated clinical trials at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: A commercial federated network called TriNetX has connected electronic health record (EHR) data from academic medical centers (AMCs) with biopharmaceutical sponsors in a privacy-preserving manner to promote sponsor-initiated clinical trials. Little is known about how AMCs have implemented TriNetX to support clinical trials. FINDINGS: At our AMC over a six-year period, TriNetX integrated into existing institutional workflows enabled 402 requests for sponsor-initiated clinical trials, 14 % (n = 56) of which local investigators expressed interest in conducting. Although clinical trials administrators indicated TriNetX yielded unique study opportunities, measurement of impact of institutional participation in the network was challenging due to lack of a common trial identifier shared across TriNetX, sponsor, and our institution. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study is among the first to describe integration of a federated network of EHR data into institutional workflows for sponsor-initiated clinical trials. This case report may inform efforts at other institutions.