Subject
Data Characterization Report Meeting with University of Nebraska (C4 GPC)
Date and Time
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 10am EST
Location
Web Join link:
Join WebEx meeting
Call-in toll-free number: 1-888-687-4838
Meeting number: 642 757 567
Attendees
University of Nebraska/GPC Network: Bob Greenlee, Laurel Verhagen, Jim Campbell,
Jim McClay, Russ Waitman, Jerry Parker, Abu Mosa
HPHCI: Jessica Sturtevant, Casie Horgan, Lindsey Petro
Duke: James Topping
Agenda:
Item
Topic
1
Discuss High-Level Metrics
2
Discuss Data Report
3
Other Questions
4
CDRN Liaison Update: James Topping Introduction
5
Next Steps
Action Items:
Task
Team & Person
Follow up with DRN OC Team (Shelley
Rusincovitch) regarding possible CDM
Forum discussion on encounter type
mapping
HPHCI
Further investigation into three
remaining data questions on DC report
GPC (Jim Campbell)
Provide U Nebraska/GPC team with
location of DC SQL code
HPHCI
Follow up with DRN OC Team regarding
version control tracking for SAS programs
HPHCI
Follow up with DRN OC Team regarding
presentation of Data Characterization
queries and process in the future
HPHCI
Due Date
Status
Current DataMart Status:
Data Summary
Status
DataMart ready to respond to Prep-to-Research
Query
Awaiting follow-up on remaining data discussion
topics
DataMart Refresh Approved
Awaiting follow-up on remaining data discussion
topics
Minutes:
Discuss High-Level Metrics
- No comments
Discuss Data Report
DEMOGRAPHIC
- From Data Characterization Report: UNKNOWN from Clarity mapped to UN and NULL from
Clarity mapped to NI
ENROLLMENT
- Geographic and encounter-based enrollment described in DC Report
-
Not all patients in the DEMOGRAPHIC table are in ENROLLMENT due to the enrollment criteria
o This is helpful to know going forward
Restriction of patients included in DEMOGRAPHIC not necessary at site/CDRN level
The Coordinating Center will restrict (if necessary) based on study-specific criteria
The purpose of DC is to characterize and better understand how data elements like enrollment
are defined
ENCOUNTER
- Some patients in DEMOGRAPHIC table do not have associated encounter
o From DC Report: This is due to conversion of historical data
o Helpful to know going forward
- Linear drop in encounters starting in January 2014
o Awaiting further investigation by Jim Campbell (post-Thanksgiving)
o Could be due to date obfuscation method (dates shifted backward 0-365 days)
o Could be due to encounters table being limited to a required # of encounters within a
period of time similar to those who fit the encounter-based enrollment algorithm
- ENCOUNTER table should not be limited by ENROLLMENT
o Do not want to limit source data, keep source data and allow analytics to limit as
required for each analytic purpose
- Encounters mapped to “other” include lab draws, testing, and administrative events
(appointments, canceled appointments, etc) – due to Epic system
o We should be mapping encounters for health care utilization
- Face-to-face encounters with a health care interaction were mapped to specific categories
- DRN OC will circle back with team (Shelley Rusincovitch) regarding possible discussion on how to
handle administrative encounters in a CDM Implementation Forum
- ED encounter to IP admission considered two encounters
- Telephone/email interaction (advice given) = Other Ambulatory as stated in PCORnet CDM
o Consider removing for CDM V3 implementation
- Transition to Epic in April 2012 would explain why encounters before that date were strictly
“other”
o Encounter metadata from historical data not sufficient quality to be mapped
- DRG missingness so high because only hospitalization encounters are coded with DRGs and a
small proportion of all encounters were hospitalizations
- 771 values outside of CDM specifications in admit_source
o Mismapped and will be investigated by Jim Campbell
DIAGNOSIS
- Small number of diagnoses per encounter due to large number of strictly administrative events
that do not have an associated procedure/diagnosis
- In DX_source, may be useful if time/resources allow to map inpatient events still in progress to
IN (interim) according to PCORnet CDM
- From DC Report: In PDX: ED, AV, and OA encounters do not prioritize diagnosis and thus were
classified as “X” according to CDM specifications. Inpatient diagnosis not yet processed by billing
were classified as “other”
o Helpful information going forward
PROCEDURES
- Note: distribution of this data similar to data in diagnosis and encounter
o
o
VITAL
-
Will be investigated further
May be due to backwards date shifting as discussed above
Height frequency looks as expected for an adult population
Weight frequency:
o Majority between 101-275 (expected with adult population)
o 0 records for 276-350 with a number of records for 350+ -- possible extract error that
will be investigated by Jim Campbell
ETL ADD
- Billing information encounters distinguished from EHR data by charge codes in PROCEDURE
table (PX_source)
- Unshifting dates a possibility
o Consult IRB
Other Questions
- Location of SQL code for this query sent to all meeting attendees for reference-also available via
the query tool
o Past modifications to account for running on Unix machine
- Software/version tracking – input and suggestions welcome
- SAS decisions made by PCORI
- For Phase 2, analytic and DC code will be in SAS
- Version control for SAS DC: must circle back with Duke team (owners of DC workstream)
- Timelines for analytics and code would be useful, as well as information on budget, priorities,
etc
James Topping Introduction
- DCRI
- Will be working as DRN OC liaison
- james.topping@duke.edu