- From: Rachel Richesson <Rachel.Richesson@epi.usf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:20:31 -0400
- To: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <public-hcls-dse@w3.org>
- Cc: "Stanley Huff" <Stan.Huff@intermountainmail.org>, "Yan Heras" <Yan.Heras@intermountainmail.org>, "Oniki, Tom \(GE Healthcare, consultant\)" <Tom.Oniki@ge.com>, "Joey Coyle" <joey@xcoyle.com>
- Message-ID: <518E964FB13BF249AFFD4965D8895CC50679D5@ex2.epi.usf.edu>
For those interested in the Clinical Observations Interoperability activities, I would like to generate some discussion on this topic as I attempt to outline a use-case these next 2 weeks.... So I will share my thoughts on the problem context so far: I am trying to determine the over-arching use-case context for this Clinical Observations Interoperability demo, in order to determine the appropriate CDISC model for this pilot project. I think a broad context (e.g., EHR --> screening for trial eligibility, or EHR --> Phase1 trial adverse events) needs to be defined here first; and then specific examples, such as the breast cancer domain, and a project strategy (OWL, RDF, etc) can easily be generated. However, I am having considerable difficulty in identifying a context and justification for the use case and wanted to solicit feedback from the group before our next call on 8/28. I had originally thought that a clear and easy context, one that would be relevant both to investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored studies, would be the use of EHR data to estimate study population sizes or to identify persons to participate in trials. But, this would not be a "regulated" use of the clinical data, so I do not even see CDISC standards (at least current ones) logically fitting into that scenario. The CDISC Study Data Tabulation Model (SDTM) is the standard for the regulatory *submission* of clinical trials data (implying that the trial has already been conducted). The SDTM standard is designed only for the regulatory submission, and is not necessarily an operational standard. I assume individual pharmaceutical companies store their data in a variety of different models (for which none are "standard") and then they convert the data into SDTM before submission. So, if the group wants to use SDTM as part of this demo, a use case based upon sharing EHR data for a phase 1 or 2 trial would seem more appropriate. However, I am not convinced that EHR data is collected in a structured fashion or at time points that would make it useful in that scenario (e.g., Do all study visits necessarily collide with a clinical visit? If so, does the clinician need a formal association with study or training in order to collect the data with rigor required by the research protocol?) CDASH is still early in development and focused on determining a set of (minimum) required elements for data collection (forms) in certain areas, such as adverse events, medical history, demographics, etc. There is significant potential for overlap in scope/activity of CDASH with the SDTM activities, and the CDISC organization has just recently developed processes to make sure that the terminology suggested by CDASH does not conflict with what are becoming close-to-final standards for SDTM terminology. Since CDASH is really a data capture standard, it seems to be more appropriate to use as a target model in this project, but it is really quite new and I am not sure when it will become a finalized CDISC standard. We could assume that SDTM represents (or will represent) a (FDA) standardized data structure, terminology, and code sets, and that CDASH will be harmonized with it some day (soon I hope). In that sense we could justify its use, but it would be nice to find some business justification for EHR-Clinical Trials interoperability that could be appreciated by a wide audience. [[What about post-market surveillance for AEs? Or populating the EHR with clinical trial data? Or retrospective studies that abstract data from EHR, but these are not typically FDA-regulated, are they?]] What is very clear to me, as most of you know and we discussed on the phone last week, is that Lainden Baines and others from CDISC should be very involved in identifying the use case, and certainly he will be able to correct any of my mis-understandings of the CDISC standards. Either Vipul or I hope to be in contact with him next week. I hope that those in the group with understanding of regulated research environment or CDISC standards will join in this thread as well. Once a context is fleshed out, then I think it will be quite easy for me to find examples of protocols that require certain information types (e.g., lab, diagnosis, imaging, genetic) that we would like to demonstrate interoperability between the EHR (via Stan Huff's Clinical Data Model structure) and the appropriate CDISC model. The use-case and context are critical to the success of the project. I hope that those of you on this list serve with relationships/experience with pharmaceutical industry can help focus me on this, because I am struggling with it. Meanwhile, I am still thinking hard on this.... Have a great weekend. Thanks, Rachel p.s. - the documents at the bottom of the wiki (http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/OntologyTaskForce/BIONTDSEDCM ) provide critical background on this topic. Rachel Richesson, PhD, MPH Informaticist and Assistant Professor Pediatrics Epidemiology Center USF College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics 3650 Spectrum Blvd., Suite 100 Tampa, FL 33612 Office: (813) 396-9522 Fax: (813) 396-9601 or (813) 910-5922 Email: richesrl@epi.usf.edu
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 18:31:01 UTC