Widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and expansion of patient registries present opportunities to improve patient care and population health and advance translational research. However, optimal integration of patient registries with EHR functions and aggregation of regional registries to support national or global analyses will require the use of standards. Currently, there are no standards for patient registries and no content standards for health care data collection or clinical research, including diabetes research. Data standards can facilitate new registry development by supporting reuse of well-defined data elements and data collection systems, and they can enable data aggregation for future research and discovery. This article introduces standardization topics relevant to diabetes patient registries, addresses issues related to the quality and use of registries and their integration with primary EHR data collection systems, and proposes strategies for implementation of data standards in diabetes research and management.
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, title XIII of division A and title IV of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub. L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009).
2.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: A user's guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
DreyerNAGarnerS. Registries for robust evidence. JAMA.2009;302 (7): 790–1.
5.
StroebelRJScheitelSMFitzJSHermanRANaessensJMScottCGZillDAMullerL. A randomized trial of three diabetes registry implementation strategies in a community internal medicine practice. Jt Comm J Qual Improv.2002;28 (8): 441–50.
6.
MontoriVMDinneenSFGormanCAZimmermanBRRizzaRABjornsenSSGreenEMBryantSCSmithSA; Translation Project Investigator Group. The impact of planned care and a diabetes electronic management system on community-based diabetes care: The Mayo Health System Diabetes Translation Project. Diabetes Care.2002;25 (11): 1952–7.
7.
F O Kern E, Beischel S, Stalnaker R, Aron DC, Kirsh SR, Watts SA. Building a diabetes registry from the Veterans Health Administration's computerized patient record system. J Diabetes Sci Technol.2008;2 (1): 7–14.
8.
BrookeEM. The current and future use of registers in health information systems. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1974. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/offset/WHO_OFFSET_8.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.
9.
RichessonRLLeeHSCuthbertsonDLloydJYoungKKrischerJP. An automated communication system in a contact registry for persons with rare diseases: Scalable tools for identifying and recruiting clinical research participants. Contemp Clin Trials.2009;30 (1): 55–62.
10.
DIAMOND Project Group. Incidence and trends of childhood type 1 diabetes worldwide 1990–1999. Diabet Med.2006;23 (8): 857–66.
11.
EURODIAB ACE Study Group. Variation and trends in incidence of childhood diabetes in Europe. Lancet.2000;355 (9207): 873–6.
12.
Mayer-DavisEJBellRADabeleaDD'AgostinoRJrImperatoreGLawrenceJMLiuLMarcovinaS; SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Group. The many faces of diabetes in American youth: Type 1 and type 2 diabetes in five race and ethnic populations: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Diabetes Care.2009;32Suppl 2: S99–101.
13.
GreenSBByarDP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: The fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med.1984;3 (4): 361–73.
14.
MiettinenOS. The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Stat Med.1983;2 (2): 267–71.
15.
GoldbergJGelfandHMLevyPS. Registry evaluation methods: A review and case study. Epidemiol Rev.1980;2: 210–20.
16.
BagheriASadekAChanTKhuntiKde LusignanS. Using surrogate markers in primary electronic patient record systems to confirm or refute the diagnosis of diabetes. Inform Prim Care.2009;17 (2): 121–9.
17.
MorrisADBoyleDIMacAlpineREmslie-SmithAJungRTNewtonRWMacDonaldTM. The diabetes audit and research in Tayside Scotland (DARTS) study: Electronic record linkage to create a diabetes register. DARTS/MEMO Collaboration. BMJ.1997;315 (7107): 524–8.
18.
TangPCRalstonMArrigottiMFQureshiLGrahamJ. Comparison of methodologies for calculating quality measures based on administrative data versus clinical data from an electronic health record system: Implications for performance measures. J Am Med Inform Assoc.2007;14 (1): 10–5.
19.
HarrisSBGlazierRHTompkinsJWWiltonASChevendraVStewartMAThindA. Investigating concordance in diabetes diagnosis between primary care charts (electronic medical records) and health administrative data: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res.2010;10: 347.
20.
CronenwettJLLikoskyDSRussellMTEldrup-JorgensenJStanleyACNolanBW; VSGNNE. A regional registry for quality assurance and improvement: The Vascular Study Group of Northern New England (VSGNNE). J Vasc Surg.2007;46 (6): 1093–2.
LesterWTZaiAHChuehHCGrantRW. Diabetes information technology: Designing informatics systems to catalyze change in clinical care. J Diabetes Sci Technol.2008;2 (2): 275–83.
23.
CrossonJCOhman-StricklandPAHahnKADiCicco-BloomBShawEOrzanoAJCrabtreeBF. Electronic medical records and diabetes quality of care: Results from a sample of family medicine practices. Ann Fam Med.2007;5 (3): 209–15.
24.
RichessonRLVehikK. Patient registries: Utility, validity and inference. In: de la PazM PGroftSC, eds. Rare diseases epidemiology. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010, 87–140.
25.
RichessonRLKrischerJ. Data standards in clinical research: Gaps, overlaps, challenges and future directions. J Am Med Inform Assoc.2007;14 (6): 687–96.
26.
ChalmersRJ. Health care terminology for the electronic era. Mayo Clin Proc.2006;81 (6): 729–31.
27.
DudeckJ. Aspects of implementing and harmonizing healthcare communication standards. Int J Med Inform.1998;48 (1–3): 163–71.
28.
American Medical Informatics Association; American Health Information Management Association Terminology and classification Policy Task Force. Healthcare terminologies and classifications: An action agenda for the United States. http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/080221p4.pdf.
HammondWECiminoJJ. Standards in biomedical informatics. In: ShortliffeEHCiminoJJ, eds. Biomedical informatics: Computer applications in health care and biomedicine. New York: Springer; 2006, 265–311.
31.
RollasonWKhuntiKde LusignanS. Variation in the recording of diabetes diagnostic data in primary care computer systems: Implications for the quality of care. Inform Prim Care.2009;17 (2): 113–9.
32.
Office of Management and Budget. Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register1997. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_1997standards. Accessed April 22, 2011.
Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP); American National Standards Institute. http://www.hitsp.org/. Accessed November 23, 2010.
35.
Clinical Data Standards Interchange Consortium. http://www.cdisc.org/. Accessed December 13, 2005.
36.
McDonaldCJHuffSMSuicoJGHillGLeavelleDAllerRForreyAMercerKDeMoorGHookJWilliamsWCaseJMaloneyP. LOINC, a universal standard for identifying laboratory observations: A 5-year update. Clin Chem.2003;49 (4): 624–33.
37.
ChuteCG. Medical concept representation. In: ChenHCFullerSSFriedmanCHershW, eds. Medical informatics: Knowledge management and data mining in biomedicine. New York: Springer; 2005, 163–82.
BhattDL. Advancing the care of cardiac patients using registry data: Going where randomized clinical trials dare not. JAMA.2010;303 (21): 2188–9.
41.
HendelRCBudoffMJCardellaJFChambersCEDentJMFitzgeraldDMHodgsonJMKlodasEKramerCMStillmanAETilkemeierPLWardRPWeigoldWGWhiteRDWoodardPK; American College of Cardiology (ACC); American Heart Association (AHA). ACC/AHA/ACR/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SIR 2008 Key data elements and definitions for cardiac imaging a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Cardiac Imaging). J Am Coll Cardiol.2009;53 (1): 91–124.
42.
BuxtonAECalkinsHCallansDJDiMarcoJ PFisherJDGreeneHLHainesDEHayesDLHeidenreichPAMillerJMPoppasAPrystowskyENSchoenfeldMHZimetbaumPJHeidenreichPAGoffDCGroverFLMalenkaDJPetersonEDRadfordMJRedbergRF; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards; (ACC/AHA/HRS Writing Committee to Develop Data Standards on Electrophysiology). ACC/AHA/HRS 2006 key data elements and definitions for electrophysiological studies and procedures: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (ACC/AHA/HRS Writing Committee to Develop Data Standards on Electrophysiology). J Am Coll Cardiol.2006;48 (11): 2360–96.
43.
RadfordMJArnoldJMBennettSJCinquegraniMPClelandJGHavranekEPHeidenreichPARutherfordJDSpertusJAStevensonLWGoffDCGroverFLMalenkaDJPetersonEDRedbergRF; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards; American College of Chest Physicians; International Society for Hear and Lung Transplantation; Heart Failure Society of America. ACC/AHA key data elements and definitions for measuring the clinical management and outcomes of patients with chronic heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Heart Failure Clinical Data Standards): Developed in collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation.2005;112 (12): 1888–916.
44.
CannonC PBattlerABrindisRGCoxJLEllisSGEveryNRFlahertyJTHarringtonRAKrumholzHMSimoonsMLVan De WerfFJWeintraubWSMitchellKRMorrissonSLBrindisRGAndersonHVCannomDSChitwoodWRCigarroaJECollins-NakaiRLEllisSGGibbonsRJGroverFLHeidenreichPAKhandheriaBKKnoebelSBKrumholzHLMalenkaDJMarkDBMcKayCRPassamaniERRadfordMJRinerRNSchwartzJBShawRESheminRJVan FossenDBVerrierEDWatkinsMWPhoubandithDRFurnelliT. American College of Cardiology key data elements and definitions for measuring the clinical management and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes. A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Acute Coronary Syndromes Writing Committee). J Am Coll Cardiol.2001;38 (7): 2114–30.
45.
AhmadianLCornetRKalkmanCde KeizerNF; NVA Working Group “Minimal Dataset for Preoperative Assessment”. Development of a national core dataset for preoperative assessment. Methods Inf Med.2009;48 (2): 155–61.
46.
WingetMDBaronJASpitzMRBrennerDEWarzelDKincaidHThornquistMFengZ. Development of common data elements: The experience of and recommendations from the Early Detection Research Network. Int J Med Inform.2003;70 (1): 41–8.
47.
MohantySKMistryATAminWParwaniAVPopleAKSchmandtLWintersSBMillikenEKimPWhelanNBFarhatGMelamedJTaioliEDhirRPassHIBecichMJ. The development and deployment of common data elements for tissue banks for translational research in cancer — An emerging standard based approach for the Mesothelioma Virtual Tissue Bank. BMC Cancer.2008;8: 91.
48.
RichessonRLMonDKallemCGunterP. A strategy for defining common data elements to support clinical care and secondary use in clinical research. Presented at: 2010 AMIA Clinical Research Informatics Summit. http://crisummit2010.amia.org/files/symposium2008/100_richesson.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2011.
HagopianWALernmarkARewersMJSimellOGSheJXZieglerAGKrischerJPAkolkarB. TEDDY-The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young: An observational clinical trial. Ann N Y Acad Sci.2006;1079: 320–6.
51.
UusitaloaUKronberg-KippilabCAronssoncCASchakeldSSchoeneSMattissonfIReinivuogHSilvishKSichert-HellertiWStevensjMNorriskJMVirtanenSM. Food composition database harmonization for between-country comparisons of nutrient data in the TEDDY Study. J Food Comp Anal. To be published.
52.
MoyersSRichessonRKrischerJ. Trans-Atlantic data harmonization in the classification of medicines and dietary supplements: A challenge for epidemiologic study and clinical research. Int J Med Inform.2008;77 (1): 58–67.
53.
WeykampCJohnWGMoscaA. A review of the challenge in measuring hemoglobin A1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol.2009;3 (3): 439–45.
54.
ElwynGJVaughanNJStottNC. District diabetes registers: More trouble than they're worth?Diabet Med.1998;15Suppl 3: S44–8.
55.
KallemCRichessonRDuLongDSisonLVan DykePMonDT. Advancing secondary data uses through data standards: HL7 project advances the “collect once, use many times” paradigm. J AHIMA.2011;82 (4): 38–9.
56.
McNamaraRLBrassLMDrozdaJPJrGoASHalperinJLKerrCRLévySMalenkaDJMittalSPelosiFJrRosenbergYStryerDWyseDGRadfordMJGoffDCJrGroverFLHeidenreichPAMalenkaDJPetersonEDRedbergRF; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Data Standards on Atrial Fibrillation); American Collage of Cardiology; American Heart Association. ACC/AHA key data elements and definitions for measuring the clinical management and outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Data Standards on Atrial Fibrillation). Circulation.2004;109 (25): 3223–43.
57.
HendelRCBudoffMJCardellaJFChambersCEDentJMFitzgeraldDMHodgsonJMKlodasEKramerCMStillmanAETilkemeierPLWardRPWeigoldWGWhiteRDWoodardPK. ACC/AHA/ACR/ASE/ASNC/HRS/NASCI/RSNA/SAIP/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SIR 2008 key data elements and definitions for cardiac imaging: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Cardiac Imaging). Circulation.2009;119 (1): 154–86.
