Better patient identification could help fight the coronavirus

One Digital Health for more FAIRness

BACKGROUND

 One Digital Health (ODH) aims to propose a framework that merges One Health's and Digital Health's specific features into an innovative landscape. FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles consider applications and computational agents (or, in other terms, data, metadata, and infrastructures) as stakeholders with the capacity to find, access, interoperate, and reuse data with none or minimal human intervention.

OBJECTIVES

 This paper aims to elicit how the ODH framework is compliant with FAIR principles and metrics, providing some thinking guide to investigate and define whether adapted metrics need to be figured out for an effective ODH Intervention setup.

METHODS

 An integrative analysis of the literature was conducted to extract instances of the need-or of the eventual already existing deployment-of FAIR principles, for each of the three layers (keys, perspectives and dimensions) of the ODH framework. The scope was to assess the extent of scatteredness in pursuing the many facets of FAIRness, descending from the lack of a unifying and balanced framework.

RESULTS

 A first attempt to interpret the different technological components existing in the different layers of the ODH framework, in the light of the FAIR principles, was conducted. Although the mature and working examples of workflows for data FAIRification processes currently retrievable in the literature provided a robust ground to work on, a nonsuitable capacity to fully assess FAIR aspects for highly interconnected scenarios, which the ODH-based ones are, has emerged. Rooms for improvement are anyway possible to timely deal with all the underlying features of topics like the delivery of health care in a syndemic scenario, the digital transformation of human and animal health data, or the digital nature conservation through digital technology-based intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

 ODH pillars account for the availability (findability, accessibility) of human, animal, and environmental data allowing a unified understanding of complex interactions (interoperability) over time (reusability). A vision of integration between these two worlds, under the vest of ODH Interventions featuring FAIRness characteristics, toward the development of a systemic lookup of health and ecology in a digitalized way, is therefore auspicable.

Evaluation of real-world referential and probabilistic patient matching to advance patient identification strategy

OBJECTIVE

This study sought both to support evidence-based patient identity policy development by illustrating an approach for formally evaluating operational matching methods, and also to characterize the performance of both referential and probabilistic patient matching algorithms using real-world demographic data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed matching accuracy for referential and probabilistic matching algorithms using a manually reviewed 30 000 record gold standard reference dataset derived from a large health information exchange containing over 47 million patient registrations. We applied referential and probabilistic algorithms to this dataset and compared the outputs to the gold standard. We computed performance metrics including sensitivity (recall), positive predictive value (precision), and F-score for each algorithm.

RESULTS

The probabilistic algorithm exhibited sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and F-score of .6366, 0.9995, and 0.7778, respectively. The referential algorithm exhibited corresponding sensitivity, PPV, and F-score values of 0.9351, 0.9996, and 0.9663, respectively. Treating discordant and limited-data records as nonmatches increased referential match sensitivity to 0.9578. Compared to the more traditional probabilistic approach, referential matching exhibits greater accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Referential patient matching, an increasingly popular method among health IT vendors, demonstrated notably greater accuracy than a more traditional probabilistic approach without the adaptation of the algorithm to the data that the traditional probabilistic approach usually requires. Health IT policymakers, including the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), should explore strategies to expand the evidence base for real-world matching system performance, given the need for an evidence-based patient identity strategy.

Keep Moving Forward: Health Informatics and Information Management beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objectives: To identify gaps and challenges in health informatics and health information management during the COVID-19 pandemic. To describe solutions and offer recommendations that can address the identified gaps and challenges.

Methods: A literature review of relevant peer-reviewed and grey literature published from January 2020 to December 2020 was conducted to inform the paper.

Results: The literature revealed several themes regarding health information management and health informatics challenges and gaps: information systems and information technology infrastructure; data collection, quality, and standardization; and information governance and use. These challenges and gaps were often driven by public policy and funding constraints.

Conclusions: COVID-19 exposed complexities related to responding to a world-wide, fast moving, quickly spreading novel virus. Longstanding gaps and ongoing challenges in the local, national, and global health and public health information systems and data infrastructure must be addressed before we are faced with another global pandemic.

Universal Patient Identifier and Interoperability for Detection of Serious Drug Interactions: Retrospective Study

Background

The United States, unlike other high-income countries, currently has no national unique patient identifier to facilitate health information exchange. Because of security and privacy concerns, Congress, in 1998, prevented the government from promulgating a unique patient identifier. The Health and Human Services funding bill that was enacted in 2019 requires that Health and Human Services report their recommendations on patient identification to Congress. While there are anecdotes of incomplete health care data due to patient misidentification, to date there have been insufficient large-scale analyses measuring improvements to patient care that a unique patient identifier might provide. This lack of measurement has made it difficult for policymakers to balance security and privacy concerns against the value of potential improvements.

Objective

We sought to determine the frequency of serious drug-drug interaction alerts discovered because a pharmacy benefits manager uses a universal patient identifier and estimate undiscovered serious drug-drug interactions because pharmacy benefit managers do not yet fully share patient records.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of serious drug-drug interaction alerts provided from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2019 to retail pharmacies by a national pharmacy benefit manager that uses a unique patient identifier. We compared each alert to the contributing prescription and determined whether the unique patient identifier was necessary in order to identify the crossover alert. We classified each alert’s disposition as override, abandonment, or replacement. Using the crossover alert rate and sample population size, we inferred a rate of missing serious drug-drug interaction alerts for the United States. We performed logistic regression in order to identify factors correlated with crossover and alert outcomes.

Results

Among a population of 49.7 million patients, 242,646 serious drug-drug interaction alerts occurred in 3 years. Of these, 2388 (1.0%) crossed insurance and were discovered because the pharmacy benefit manager used a unique patient identifier. We estimate that up to 10% of serious drug-drug alerts in the United States go undetected by pharmacy benefit managers because of unexchanged information or pharmacy benefit managers that do not use a unique patient identifier. These information gaps may contribute, annually, to up to 6000 patients in the United States receiving a contraindicated medication.

Conclusions

Comprehensive patient identification across disparate data sources can help protect patients from serious drug-drug interactions. To better safeguard patients, providers should (1) adopt a comprehensive patient identification strategy and (2) share patient prescription history to improve clinical decision support.