Affiliation:
1. Maastricht University Medical Center+
2. Maastricht University
3. Erasmus Medical Center
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
Hospitals and healthcare providers should assess and compare their quality of care given to patients and based on this improve the care. In the Netherlands, hospitals provide data to national quality registries, which in return provide annual quality indicators. However, this process is time-consuming, resource intensive and risks patient privacy and confidentiality. In this paper, we presented a multicentric ‘Proof of Principle’ study for federated calculation of quality indicators in patients with colorectal cancer.
Materials and Methods
Two quality indicators are calculated in an efficient and privacy persevering federated manner, by i) applying the Findable Accessible Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) data principles and ii) using the Personal Health Train (PHT) infrastructure. Instead of sharing data to a centralized registry, PHT enables analysis by sending algorithms and sharing only insights from the data.
Results
ETL process extracted data from the Electronic Health Record systems of the hospitals, converted them to FAIR data and hosted in RDF endpoints within each hospital. Finally, quality indicators from each center are calculated using PHT and the mean result along with the individual results plotted.
Discussion and Conclusion
PHT and FAIR data principles can efficiently calculate quality indicators in a privacy-preserving federated approach and the work can be scaled up both nationally and internationally. Despite this, application of the methodology was largely hampered by ELSI issues. However, the lessons learned from this study can provide other hospitals and researchers to adapt to the process easily and take effective measures in building quality of care infrastructures.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud;Mons B;Inf Serv Use
2. Measuring Quality of Care;Brook RH;N Engl J Med
3. The Dutch surgical colorectal audit;Leersum NJ;Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol
4. Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure;Tunis SR;Stat Med,2010
5. Dentler K, Cornet R, Teije A, ten, Tanis P, Klinkenbijl J, Tytgat K et al. Influence of data quality on computed Dutch hospital quality indicators: a case study in colorectal cancer surgery. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014 Apr 11;14(1):32.