Coverage of physical therapy assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model common data model.


Journal

Applied clinical informatics
ISSN: 1869-0327
Titre abrégé: Appl Clin Inform
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101537732

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline: 23 8 2024
pubmed: 23 8 2024
entrez: 22 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear. Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM. After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment. Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively). The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.
METHODS METHODS
After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39174009
doi: 10.1055/a-2401-3688
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Thieme. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Margaret A French (MA)

Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States.

Paul Hartman (P)

Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States.

Heather A Hayes (HA)

Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States.

Leah Ling (L)

Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States.

John Magel (J)

Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States.

Anne Thackeray (A)

Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States.

Classifications MeSH