Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383669›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

A Modified Public Health Automated Case Event Reporting Platform for Enhancing Electronic Laboratory Reports With Clinical Data: Design and Implementation Study.

Ninad Mishra, Jon Duke, Saugat Karki, Myung Choi, Michael Riley, Andrey V Ilatovskiy, Marla Gorges, Leslie Lenert

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Extracting laboratory test information from paper-based reports.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ninad Mishra *Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1401-2072
Jon Duke *Center for Health Analytics and Informatics, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5523-2368
Saugat Karki *Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2161-678X
Myung Choi *Center for Health Analytics and Informatics, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3098-523X
Michael Riley *Center for Health Analytics and Informatics, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3843-2629
Andrey V Ilatovskiy *Biomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5975-0445
Marla Gorges *Center for Health Analytics and Informatics, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9551-106X
Leslie Lenert *Biomedical Informatics Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9680-5094
Georgia Institute of Technology · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USMedical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublic health reporting is the cornerstone of public health practices that inform prevention and control strategies. There is a need to leverage advances made in the past to implement an architecture that facilitates the timely and complete public health reporting of relevant case-related information that has previously not easily been available to the public health community. Electronic laboratory reporting (ELR) is a reliable method for reporting cases to public health authorities but contains very limited data. In an earlier pilot study, we designed the Public Health Automated Case Event Reporting (PACER) platform, which leverages existing ELR infrastructure as the trigger for creating an electronic case report. PACER is a FHIR (Fast Health Interoperability Resources)-based system that queries the electronic health record from where the laboratory test was requested to extract expanded additional information about a case.

objectiveThis study aims to analyze the pilot implementation of a modified PACER system for electronic case reporting and describe how this FHIR-based, open-source, and interoperable system allows health systems to conduct public health reporting while maintaining the appropriate governance of the clinical data.

methodsELR to a simulated public health department was used as the trigger for a FHIR-based query. Predetermined queries were translated into Clinical Quality Language logics. Within the PACER environment, these Clinical Quality Language logical statements were managed and evaluated against the providers' FHIR servers. These predetermined logics were filtered, and only data relevant to that episode of the condition were extracted and sent to simulated public health agencies as an electronic case report. Design and testing were conducted at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, and the pilot was deployed at the Medical University of South Carolina. We evaluated this architecture by examining the completeness of additional information in the electronic case report, such as patient demographics, medications, symptoms, and diagnoses. This additional information is crucial for understanding disease epidemiology, but existing electronic case reporting and ELR architectures do not report them. Therefore, we used the completeness of these data fields as the metrics for enriching electronic case reports.

resultsDuring the 8-week study period, we identified 117 positive test results for chlamydia. PACER successfully created an electronic case report for all 117 patients. PACER extracted demographics, medications, symptoms, and diagnoses from 99.1% (116/117), 72.6% (85/117), 70.9% (83/117), and 65% (76/117) of the cases, respectively.

conclusionsPACER deployed in conjunction with electronic laboratory reports can enhance public health case reporting with additional relevant data. The architecture is modular in design, thereby allowing it to be used for any reportable condition, including evolving outbreaks. PACER allows for the creation of an enhanced and more complete case report that contains relevant case information that helps us to better understand the epidemiology of a disease.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesPublic HealthElectronic Health RecordsElectronicsHumansPilot ProjectschlamydiaEHRelectronic case reportingelectronic health recordselectronic laboratory reportingfast healthcare interoperability resourcesgonorrheahealth information interoperabilitypublic health surveillancesexually transmitted diseases

Identifiers

PMID34383669
PMCPMC8387889
OpenAlexW3175934966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.