Structure of Health Information With Different Information Models: Evaluation Study With Competency Questions.

BACKGROUND: There is a flora of health care information models but no consensus on which to use. This leads to poor information sharing and duplicate modelling work. The amount and type of differences between models has, to our knowledge, not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This work aims to explore how information structured with various information models differ in practice. Our hypothesis is that differences between information models are overestimated. This work will also assess the usability of competency questions as a method for evaluation of information models within health care. METHODS: In this study, 4 information standards, 2 standards for secondary use, and 2 electronic health record systems were included as material. Competency questions were developed for a random selection of recommendations from a clinical guideline. The information needed to answer the competency questions was modelled according to each included information model, and the results were analyzed. Differences in structure and terminology were quantified for each combination of standards. RESULTS: In this study, 36 competency questions were developed and answered. In general, similarities between the included information models were larger than the differences. The demarcation between information model and terminology was overall similar; on average, 45% of the included structures were identical between models. Choices of terminology differed within and between models; on average, 11% was usable in interaction with each other. The information models included in this study were able to represent most information required for answering the competency questions. CONCLUSIONS: Different but same same; in practice, different information models structure much information in a similar fashion. To increase interoperability within and between systems, it is more important to move toward structuring information with any information model rather than finding or developing a perfect information model. Competency questions are a feasible way of evaluating how information models perform in practice.

How Do Informaticians and IT-Architects Collaborate, or Not? A Case Study from a Public Health Care Provider.

Despite years of work from both informaticians and IT-architects interoperability within healthcare is still low. This explorative case study performed on a well-staffed public health care provider shows that the involved roles were unclear, processes did not include each other, and that tooling was incompatible. However, interest in collaboration was high and technical advances and inhouse development were seen as incentives for increased collaboration.

A State-of-the Art Review of SNOMED CT Terminology Binding and Recommendations for Practice and Research.

BACKGROUND: Unambiguous sharing of data requires information models and terminology in combination, but there is a lack of knowledge as to how they should be combined, leading to impaired interoperability. OBJECTIVES: To facilitate creation of guidelines for SNOMED CT terminology binding we have performed a literature review to find existing recommendations and expose knowledge gaps. The primary audience is practitioners and researchers working with terminology binding. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for papers containing "terminology binding," "subset," "map," "information model" or "implement" and the term "SNOMED." RESULTS: The search yielded 616 unique papers published from 2004 to 2020, from which 55 papers were selected and analyzed inductively. Topics described in the papers include problems related to input material, SNOMED CT, information models, and lack of appropriate tools as well as recommendations regarding competence. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are given for practitioners and researchers. Many of the stated problems can be solved by better co-operation between domain experts and informaticians and better knowledge of SNOMED CT. Settings where these competences either work together or where staff with knowledge of both act as brokers are well equipped for terminology binding. Tooling is not thoroughly researched and might be a possible way to facilitate terminology binding.

Reduced vaginal elasticity, reduced lubrication, and deep and superficial dyspareunia in irradiated gynecological cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine whether or not vaginal elasticity or lack of lubrication is associated with deep or superficial dyspareunia. We investigated gynecological cancer survivors treated with radiation therapy. METHODS: In a population-based study with 616 women answering a questionnaire (participation rate 78%) and who were treated with radiotherapy for gynecological cancer, we analyzed information from 243 women (39%) who reported that they had had intercourse during the previous six months. Analyses included log-binomial regression (relative risks) and multiple imputations by chained equations in combination with Bayesian Model Averaging, yielding a posterior probability value. Age range of this cancer recurrent-free group of women was 29-80. RESULTS: Dyspareunia affected 164 of 243 of the women (67%). One hundred thirty-four women (55%) reported superficial pain, 97 women (40%) reported deep pain, and 87 women (36%) reported both types of dyspareunia. The relative risk (RR) of deep dyspareunia was 1.87 (CI 1.41-2.49) with impaired vaginal elasticity compared to normal vaginal elasticity. Age and lower abdominal swelling were separate risk factors for deep dyspareunia. However, effects remain after adjusting for these factors. CONCLUSION: The relative risk of deep dyspareunia was almost twice as high with impaired vaginal elasticity compared to normal vaginal elasticity. If we wish to treat or even prevent deep dyspareunia in women with gynecological cancer, we may use our knowledge of the pathophysiology of deep dyspareunia and increasingly provide dilators together with instructions on how to use them for stretching exercises in order to retain vaginal elasticity. Results highlight the need for studies with more precise questions distinguishing superficial from deep dyspareunia so that in the future we may be able to primarily try to avoid reduced vaginal elasticity and secondarily reduce the symptoms.