Search

Background: The use of routinely collected health data for secondary research purposes is increasingly recognised as a methodology that advances medical research, improves patient outcomes, and guides policy. This secondary data, as found in electronic medical records (EMRs), can be optimised through conversion into a uniform data structure to enable analysis alongside other comparable health metric datasets. This can be achieved with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM), which employs a standardised vocabulary to facilitate systematic analysis across various observational databases. The concept behind the OMOP-CDM is the conversion of data into a common format through the harmonisation of terminologies, vocabularies, and coding schemes within a unique repository. The OMOP model enhances research capacity through the development of shared analytic and prediction techniques; pharmacovigilance for the active surveillance of drug safety; and 'validation' analyses across multiple institutions across Australia, the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. In this research, we aim to investigate the use of the open-source OMOP-CDM in the PATRON primary care data repository., Methods: We used standard structured query language (SQL) to construct, extract, transform, and load scripts to convert the data to the OMOP-CDM. The process of mapping distinct free-text terms extracted from various EMRs presented a substantial challenge, as many terms could not be automatically matched to standard vocabularies through direct text comparison. This resulted in a number of terms that required manual assignment. To address this issue, we implemented a strategy where our clinical mappers were instructed to focus only on terms that appeared with sufficient frequency. We established a specific threshold value for each domain, ensuring that more than 95% of all records were linked to an approved vocabulary like SNOMED once appropriate mapping was completed. To assess the data quality of the resultant OMOP dataset we utilised the OHDSI Data Quality Dashboard (DQD) to evaluate the plausibility, conformity, and comprehensiveness of the data in the PATRON repository according to the Kahn framework., Results: Across three primary care EMR systems we converted data on 2.03 million active patients to version 5.4 of the OMOP common data model. The DQD assessment involved a total of 3,570 individual evaluations. Each evaluation compared the outcome against a predefined threshold. A 'FAIL' occurred when the percentage of non-compliant rows exceeded the specified threshold value. In this assessment of the primary care OMOP database described here, we achieved an overall pass rate of 97%., Conclusion: The OMOP CDM's widespread international use, support, and training provides a well-established pathway for data standardisation in collaborative research. Its compatibility allows the sharing of analysis packages across local and international research groups, which facilitates rapid and reproducible data comparisons. A suite of open-source tools, including the OHDSI Data Quality Dashboard (Version 1.4.1), supports the model. Its simplicity and standards-based approach facilitates adoption and integration into existing data processes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Ward et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: Digitized patient progress notes from general practice represent a significant resource for clinical and public health research but cannot feasibly and ethically be used for these purposes without automated de-identification. Internationally, several open-source natural language processing tools have been developed, however, given wide variations in clinical documentation practices, these cannot be utilized without appropriate review. We evaluated the performance of four de-identification tools and assessed their suitability for customization to Australian general practice progress notes., Methods: Four tools were selected: three rule-based (HMS Scrubber, MIT De-id, Philter) and one machine learning (MIST). 300 patient progress notes from three general practice clinics were manually annotated with personally identifying information. We conducted a pairwise comparison between the manual annotations and patient identifiers automatically detected by each tool, measuring recall (sensitivity), precision (positive predictive value), f1-score (harmonic mean of precision and recall), and f2-score (weighs recall 2x higher than precision). Error analysis was also conducted to better understand each tool's structure and performance., Results: Manual annotation detected 701 identifiers in seven categories. The rule-based tools detected identifiers in six categories and MIST in three. Philter achieved the highest aggregate recall (67%) and the highest recall for NAME (87%). HMS Scrubber achieved the highest recall for DATE (94%) and all tools performed poorly on LOCATION. MIST achieved the highest precision for NAME and DATE while also achieving similar recall to the rule-based tools for DATE and highest recall for LOCATION. Philter had the lowest aggregate precision (37%), however preliminary adjustments of its rules and dictionaries showed a substantial reduction in false positives., Conclusion: Existing off-the-shelf solutions for automated de-identification of clinical text are not immediately suitable for our context without modification. Philter is the most promising candidate due to its high recall and flexibility however will require extensive revising of its pattern matching rules and dictionaries., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)