Query Health Concept-to-Codes (C2C) SWG Summary of SME Presentations

martencrushInternet and Web Development

Dec 8, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

206 views

Query Health Concept
-
to
-
Codes
(C2C) SWG

Summary of SME Presentations





Draft for Review posted
-

2/8/12

1

C2CPresentation Series

2

AHIMA


Data Mapping Principles

(Rita Scichilone)

3


Concept mapping as defined by the ISO is “a process of defining a relationship between concepts in one coding system to
concepts in another coding system in accordance with a documented rationale, for a given purposed.” Documentation about the
rationale and intended purpose for map are essential before any type of mapping is attempted. Maps should be Understandable,
Reproducible, and Useful.


Map development between coded data systems is designed for various purposes and can be expensive and challenging
to maintain and/or update. The challenge in ongoing maintenance is that it requires some element of human interaction to ensu
re
semantic interoperability. Use of local terminology for data capture in EHR is a major challenge for interoperability and hea
lth

information exchange. Rita’s presentation focused on discussion around overview of mapping principles. Multiple data sources
at
the various targets for distributed queries pose a challenge for universal data mapping.


Critical Mapping Factors and Considerations for Best Practices

1.
Mappings must be developed with this in mind
-

Have a (query) source and a (query) end target

2.
Careful consideration is required in interpreting and using maps

3.
Skilled resources and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are necessary to develop and test the validity and accuracy of the
maps

4.
Organizations must have a maintenance plans to keep current with changes in the standard codes. EHR Systems may or
may not always be mapped to the most recent versions of standard codes released such as LOINC or SNOMED CT. This
challenges semantic interoperability as mentioned above.

5.
Confirm degree of equivalence there is between the source and target, for example, via Rating Scales and Cardinality of each
maps (relationships between associated concepts) such as one to one, one to many etc.

6.
Helpful to have a best match and a default map in


it specifics how “other” and “unspecified” are handled within the maps

7.
Need a consensus management process in place via SMEs and quality assurance plan

8.
Maintain a good data dictionary and ensuring data consistency


Value proposition of maps is to ensure meaningful reuse of the maps. This leads to efficiencies if the maps are completed
accurately. However, data mapping can have its shortcomings as concepts may not always properly translate from a local system

to a standard system.

hQuery


(Andy Gregorowicz)

4


hQuery

is an open
-
source implementation of a framework for distributed query of health data. It
uses a simplified standard information model, based on nationally recognized data elements, to
enable generic queries against and summarized responses from various clinical data sources. The
query is expressed in JavaScript that interacts with a clinical EHR to extract information that is then
aggregated using hQuery.



The Codes/Code Sets are placed in a JavaScript. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) allows
building of a JavaScript. A JavaScript library houses codes that can be extracted and reused.
hQuery

would write a JavaScript (where codes/code sets are placed). This then runs through the clinical
record and pulls any matching codes/code sets.



There are no special facilities in hQuery for any type of “concept mapping” to take place.
popHealth

has used spreadsheets released with MU stage 1 measures to generate concepts. The
codes are available and the spreadsheets with MU stage 1 are available; however not able to re
-
distribute the outputs of the concepts. Spreadsheets with codes / concepts found on
www.projectpophealth.org


i2b2/SHRINE

(Shawn Murphy)

5


SHRINE is a research network for distributed queries. From a user interface perspective, he/she
builds a query, launches it and waits to get an answer back. On the back end, the query is composed
and goes through an aggregator that distributes it to SHRINE adaptors that support a type of mapping
from standard ontology to local ontology. The query is then run against the Clinical Research Charts
(CRC) in the local ontology terminology and the answers come back to the composer.



i2B2 allows the creation of formatted ontologies from the web services at
National Center for
Biomedical Ontology (NCBO).
For example, Global ontology used in query may be SNOMED. To get
SNOMED ontologies, i2B2 uses NCBO web services that bring down SNOMED terms into i2b2
ontology to a build tree. Within the SNOMED view, an extraction workflow program can be invoked
that goes to NCBO, where it grabs ontology terms and places it in a database. The database
processes these terms and translates into i2b2 metadata ontology table. This way latest SNOMED
ontology can be pulled from NCBO website
.



The key to i2b2 is the hierarchical path and that the code/set of codes are ultimately mapped to.
i2B2 can be flexible to allow organizations to support and query multiple ontologies in their database
based on the merging terminology process.
Also, i2b2 can map from one ontology to another in order
to support distributed queries on the fly
. It is also agnostic to what coding systems are and what the
ontologies are because ontologies can be built to support what is in the organization’s database. To
get a standard ontology into i2b2 implementation, it is necessary to build those from NCBO web
service or i2b2 has to distribute the appropriate demo version.


i2b2/SHRINE (Cont.)

6

Two possible Use Cases for i2b2 ontology services

1. Mapping a global to a local terminology for SHRINE queries

2. Merging one terminology into another to enable queries using 2 terminologies simultaneously.


i2b2 can automatically merge ICD9 terms with SNOMED ontology if the database has both
terms. It can be queried selectively using i2b2. At this time all organizations have ICD9 and will
soon have ICD10. Within i2b2, ICD9 can be merged into ICD10 so they can be queried together.



Each site is responsible for mapping the standard ontology to their local ontology so they are in
control of how their local terms are represented in relation to standard ontology. There will always be
issues where terms don’t match based on how general or specific they are or are similar but used
differently at various hospitals. i2b2 does not map terms in a bi
-
directional fashion




PopMedNet


(Jeff Brown)


PopMedNet

(PMN) is a software designed to facilitate the creation, operation and governance of
networks where each network decides how data and queries are standardized. It can be thought of
as a “transport mechanism” via which a query can be sent and received from data partners. PMN
typically standardizes formatting but for the most part
avoids
concept mapping as there is no internal
concept mapping mechanism. Networks powered by PMN standardize the data and decide on
querying approach where PMN facilitates. A data model plug
-
in is possible to translate queries
between models.



PMN has a Web services API/ plug
-
in architecture. The architecture allows for the data partners
(DPs) to be in control of participating in distributed query networks and the terms on how they
participate. It minimizes the need for extensive database expertise and ongoing
maintenance/management of complex data structures.



PMN querying tools are network specific (SAS, SQL, etc). Mappings are limited to industry
standard terminologies (NDC, ICD9, HCPCS, LOINC). Currently, PMN is used in a variety of
population health and public health surveillance reasons such as Mini
-
Sentinal

(FDA),
MDPHnet

(ONC), AHRQ etc.






7

Intermountain Health

(Stan Huff)

8


Concept mapping at Intermountain is done mainly to support data transformation/conversion from
local code to standard codes. They mainly receive data from outside systems or from own system (owned
by IM but purchased from different vendors). The
data is pulled into a common repository

and typically has
hierarchical structure and associative relationship. In concept mapping it is important to know the concept
and the information model because there are a lot of areas (outside of Lab) where knowing the code/set of
codes does not always translate to appropriate concepts. At Intermountain, they normalize multiple
streams of data that comes in to standard form by bringing the data to an interface engine and normalizing
data to common structure and transform local codes to standard codes. For example local lab tests and
results to LOINC and local problem lists to SNOMED
-
CT.



Concept mapping should occur at the query responder’s level
(data source) level vs. the query
requestors level because the query responder would understand their own data sets and be able to
respond more accurately than the query requestor. Internally, they utilize Dice Coefficient to for lexical
mapping; however also utilize RELMA (from Regenstrief) as an external tool for mapping. They can utilize
terminology services such as Java and JavaScript as well. Ongoing model and terminology creation and
internal maintenance of mappings requires approximately 4.5 FTEs (40% of 14 FTEs dedicated to this
work).



Their mappings are currently not shared or used by other entities and maintained internally . Most
local mappings have a 1:1 relationships; however, mappings from SNOMED to ICD
-
9 for example would
have more general applicability on a large/national scale.


Data Oriented Quality Solutions

Data Warehousing (Rick Biehl)

9


Clinical research data warehousing is made up of 26 key dimensions. Each dimension has the same
6 table database design that represent the logical sub
-
dimensions of the data warehouse:
Context,
Reference, Definition, Bridge, Group, and Hierarchy.

Ontologies

are mapped in the Hierarchy dimension.
Regardless of how many dimensions there are, the 6
-
table database design a
standard

way of looking at
each dimension. The key to building healthcare dimensions is to
standardize the way dimensions are
structured
in order for them to be federated and shared on a large scale.



In terms of Concept Mapping, categorization of sub
-
dimensions within database into some standard
form is key to making this model work. Three key elements are necessary for query creation and form the
overarching data architecture:


Category, Role, and Perspective


For example


to answer “How many analgesics were administered?,” the query should be designed to
pull all facts where a drug (category) was administered (role) and Analgesic (perspective) was available
in any higher perspective.

If all data warehouses are designed with the same 3 constructs in mind,
queries can be written against various data models



Biehl relies heavily on the Open Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Group for his work. His model is
designed such that it makes it easier for query creators to search by concepts such as “heart disease”
which on the back end are mapped to any and all relevant diagnosis codes and therefore yield accurate
query responses.
His model eliminates the need to perform searches by codes and allows for more
terminology based searches
.

Ibeza


(Victor Beraja)


Concepts codes don’t always tell what part of history or exam the information is coming
from. This is why context of the codes being returned is very important. They run medical
rules to inform patients and doctors at the point of care about clinical guidelines and insurance
benefits so an informed decision can be made for what is best for the patient.



Clinical data concept is mapped to SNOMED and /or LOINC as available within the
structure that provides context


this way the context of where this information was pulled from
is also found. Query results for a particular question at hand are as good as how well the
query has been formulated and whether the right concepts are being queried (in the right
context).



Victor Beraja’s presentation focuses on the
importance of context queries
and how to
execute accurate searches. For example, billing data (such as diagnosis code) may pull all
information relevant to the number of tests conducted but not the findings from those tests.
For instance, a query written to identify all diabetic patients with macular edema will pull
results (based on Procedure / Diagnosis codes) for the total number of
tests conducted
;
however, it will not factor in the results of those tests because that information isn't grounded
in the Procedure or Diagnosis codes. This is why it is important to understand the (clinical)
context of the queries to obtain the most accurate information possible.





10

CDISC SHARE

(Rhonda Facile)


CDISC is a non profit organization that develop standards for clinical trials. The discussion will
focus on metadata repositories and metadata that contains clinical data from clinical trials.
Overarching purpose for CDISC SHARE project is to take the various CDISC standards developed
to date and create a metadata repository that is easily accessible and appropriately linked /
formatted.

Some of the main goals of the CDISC Share Project


Provide a consistent approach to standard definition and Improve access to standards


Speed up new clinical research content development


Facilitate data reuse


Decrease costs
-

Downloadable metadata could reduce standards maintenance costs and enable
process improvement


Deliver all of CDISC’s existing and all new content in both human and machine
-
readable forms


Facilitate alignment
of Clinical Research and Healthcare Standards




In order to achieve these goals, there must be
semantic interoperability
where all standards are
using the same definitions. Also they must
utlize

the CDISC share model that links all CDISC
Standards.


Their metadata model was derived by reviewing models by Intermountain, Open EHR, SDTM,
and decided to come up with the CDISC SHARE model. The benefits of this model will be
appropriately
layered and structured,
linked together with CDISC Standards, a single definitions that
is consistently used, and machine readable.


11

UMLS and
RxNorm

National Library of
Medicine


(Olivier Bodenreider)

12

National Library of Medicine (NLM) develops standards to support users of clinical standards and terminologies. NLM
has developed normalization strategies that are specific to clinical text/terms. They go beyond string matching and do
more linguistically based methods for normalizing strings into UMLS concepts.


What is UMLS ?


UMLS stands for Unified Medical Language System. It integrates clinical vocabularies such as
SNOMED CT (clinical terms) and
MeSH

(information science) to name a few which make it easier to directly translate
one terminology to another. There are a total 160 source vocabularies and a total of 21 languages that are housed in
UMLS. The UMLS serves as a vehicle for the regulatory standards (HIPAA, HITSP, Meaningful Use). UMLS includes
all major clinical terminologies such as LOINC, SNOMED CT. RxNorm. UMLS is released twice a year and RxNorm is
released on a monthly basis. UMLS Terminology Services is available as a Graphical User Interface( GUI) for UMLS


What is RxNorm?

RxNorm can be thought of as a mini UMLS specifically targeted towards drugs) that creates standardizes names for
the drugs in addition to mappings. RxNorm integrates names and codes of a dozen vocabularies and normalizes the
names. RxNav is the Graphical User Interface for RxNorm.


Variances between UMLS and RxNorm




UMLS doesn’t create terms whereas RxNorm creates standardized terms for the drugs in addition to creating the
mappings


RxNorm and UMLS are both terminology integration systems. They provide some level of source transparency which
means that from UMLS, the original sources can be reconstructed (this cannot be done for RxNorm).

RELMA


Regenstrief Institute

(Zeshan Rajput)

13


Zeshan Rajput is a member of the SDC Support team at Accenture and not representing Regenstrief for this
presentation. RELMA does one off mappings


specifically to the LOINC standard. LOINC is used to code the
questions a clinician may ask


for example: “what is my patient’s Translates local set of concepts into standard
vocabulary. RELMA helps consume single vocabulary



RELMA is a tool distributed with LOINC that can be downloaded from the Regenstrief website. It is a free
resource that also has a sample data that can be used to test out RELMA. Some tools are available for mapping of
local test (or set of tests) to LOINC codes

Common Tests subset


Top 2000 LOINC codes can represent 95% of clinical care use

Google like search function


search box functionality and manual identification of code when necessary.



There are 4 basic ways to map local concepts to RELMA of which the best way is to load directly from HL7
V2.x messages which eliminates any manual loading errors.



Zeshan also provided a demonstration of the various ways to map local concepts to RELMA by sharing the
LMOF file (Local Master Observation File). It contains all the information that an organization would need to
represent the concept within their own information system. Zeshan did a demo of both the manual as well as the
automated ways RELMA can be used for concept mapping. Successes in mapping within RELMA depend on a
few tried and true best practices such as Expanding typical abbreviations, Standardizing terms that are referenced,
Avoid administrative terms used to distinguish tests (Stick to clinical), Standardize time references, and lastly
include units of measure to increase specificity of the automated mapping tool.



Mayo Clinic


LexEVS


(Craig Stancl )

14


LexEVS

6.0 has been in development at Mayo Clinic for approximately the past 10 years. It is a comprehensive
set of open source software and services to accomplish various tasks such as load, publish, and access vocabulary or
ontological resources. It is built on
common information model called the
Lex

Grid model
that represents multiple
vocabularies and ontologies in one model.
LexEVS’s

primary goal is to be able to utilize and provide access of
common repositories (Oracle, DB2 etc.) software components, APIs, and tools. The
LexEVS

model is based on
standards within HL7, specifically CTS 1 specs and model/definition provided by ISO 11179 (international standard for
representing metadata for an organization in a metadata registry.)


The
LexGrid

Model represents the data and provides a mechanism for standard storage of controlled
vocabularies and ontologies:


Defines HOW vocabularies can be commonly formatted and represented


Provides the core representation for all data managed and retrieved through the
LexEVS

system


Provides ability to build common repositories to store vocabulary content and common programming interfaces and
tools to access and manipulate that content.


Terminologies from widely varying resources such as RRF, OWL, and OBO can be loaded to a single data base
management system and accessed with an single API.


Mapping capabilities built into
LexEVS

for the most part have been based off experience with SNOMED CT.
Mayo provides the API to do the mappings
. The mapping relates a coded concept within a specified code system
(source) to a corresponding coded concept (target) within the same or another code system, including identification of
a specified association type. The query can be based on the source or target text as well as the association type or
qualifier. Also can specify how the results are sorted based on query type. Able to load maps from a wide range of
formats


XML, OWL, RRF into
LexEVS

repository.





Mayo Clinic



Common Terminology Services 2.0

(Kevin Peterson)

15


CTS 2 was developed by Mayo Clinic to provide a standard for a shared semantic model and API for the
query, interchange and update of terminological content. (i.e. standard way to query and store vocabulary content).
CTS2 is an API specification and it defines the semantics, syntax and valid interactions that can occur. It is not a
software. Rather it is the blueprint for building and using software.



It is not specific to healthcare and can essentially support any terminology content from any discipline.
There are some semantic web components built in
-

OWL and RDF. Extensions are encouraged within CTS 2 as
it is not meant to limit what can be done with it. The purpose is to be able to show how common things can be
consistently done



CTS 2 is plug in based meaning that functionality deemed necessary can be implemented
-

Not all
components have to be implemented. The Model View Controller (MVC) architecture pattern of development
provides a REST based framework for CTS 2. REST implementation was one of OMG standards platform specific
models of CTS 2 (
http://www.omg.org/spec/CTS2/1.0/Beta1/20120906

).


Integration points between
LexEVS

and CTS 2




CTS2 interfaces could be implemented using
LexEVS

6.0.


Provide a Standards
-
Based ontology mapping tool.


CTS2 is an accepted OMG and HL7 Standard.


LexEVS

is proven and used by NCI and NCBO.


LexEVS

and CTS2 provide an open source solution.

3M
-

Healthcare Data Dictionary

(Shaun
Shakib
)

16


Healthcare Data Dictionary is the vocabulary server utilized
at 3M. Components of the system are
-

Enterprise
Master Person Index, Clinical Data Repository for storing pt data, HDD (responsible for all structuring and encoding of
data stored in CDR). HDD is a system that organizes, defines, and encodes concepts. It can be thought of as a
metadata repository that defines the logical structure of instance data to make it computable.

-

Medical Information Model


supplies structural definitions of what is stored in CDR,

-

Knowledge Base


Semantic network


relationships between concepts

-
Controlled Medical Vocabularies.



The approach is to
centralize mapping vs. a network of point to point mappings
. Main reason for this is that it is
easier to maintain additions of new sources and updates. They have concept based controlled medical vocabulary and
3M integrate both source standard terminology and local interface terminology through process of concept mapping.
HDD has roughly 2.4 million concepts (both global, local (single enterprise) and shared concepts)



In terms of the actual mapping process, 3M utilizes some tooling / matching technology. They have SMEs who
are clinical experts with domain knowledge and formal informatics training to develop and maintain mappings. They
use in
-
house tools developed for mappings. They also perform Semantic Mapping for Drugs and have an internal
terminology model for drugs/lab results. This internal terminology model breaks lab results concept down into
component attributes by following LOINC model . They can then look to see if these concepts are in HDD that are
defined in the same way. Lastly, the creation of new concepts requires
inerator

(?) agreement and validation of all
mappings.



3M
-

Healthcare Data Dictionary

(Shaun
Shakib
)

17


The combination of all these various pieces is a
concept based controlled medical vocabulary
that has
various source systems mapped to them. All mappings in HDD are concept equivalent level. This means that if an
incoming source has a different level of granularity/specificity than any concept in HDD, their approach is to create
that concept at the appropriate level of granularity and then use semantic network to go from that concept to the
closest concept that might have standard code associated with it (i.e.


Identify the best match and then have the
next best alternative mapping).




Currently,
HDD utilizes CTS V 1.2 which provides functional specs to query terminology servers in a
standard way
. Concepts that have changed in meaning or updated codes are not deleted; however, they are
inactivated. Having HDD as a tool for mapping allows 3M to code data and once a standard code becomes
available, they associate that code with the concept in HDD. As far as handling any overlaps with concepts, there
is always a chance that observations in LOINC and SNOMED CT could overlap. A single concept in HDD can
have multiple source codes associated with it. So if there is overlap, they just associated all codes to that same
concept.

NY Presbyterian Terminology Service

(David Baorto)

18


What started as terminology management at NY Presbyterian hospital with the development of the Medical
Entities Dictionary (MED) approximately 20 years ago has now expanded into a Terminology Service at NYP (both
Cornell and Columbia hospitals).



Concept mapping can be defined in various ways


local to local, local to standard, and standard to standard
codes. There are Hierarchical types of maps (i.e. information residing as a subclass or at a more granular level)
and Relational maps which are mappings in between the various standards. As we’ve seen in other presentations,
concept mapping is goal specific and the type of mapping necessary will vary based on what requirements or
results an information requestor is looking for. For this reason, concept mapping also needs to be flexible and
support changes to evolving standards.



Integrity of the original data is retained at the granularity of the source system. Semantics about the data are
maintained in the
central terminology system
. As data flows from source systems to various downstream systems,
the central terminology can be leveraged by the system in order to infer information from that data and obtain
terminological knowledge. The MED Connects in real time for production queries to certain systems and provides
batch interval results for other vendor systems.



The mapping process


All codes (subclasses) are assigned to a class based on the hierarchy system.
When a new code needs to be added, it is created in the MED and assigned to a class in the appropriate hierarchy.
The mapping does not occur at the data source or the information requestor level, but rather it occurs at the level
of the terminology server.





NY Presbyterian Terminology Service

David Baorto


(Cont.)

19


As far as internal tools, they use lexical approaches, hierarchy and semantics. The terminology team
does build some tools in Perl however most of their work is centered around “service” rather than actual tools. For
external tools, there are available crosswalks between ICD 9 and CPT that helps build procedure hierarchy in MED
and they also utilize RELMA for LOINC.



Content provision tools
-

how do downstream systems speak to the central terminology?

There is a Web Based MED Browser where searches can be conducted. Also, you can view concepts within the
MED (one by one) and also drill down by
hierarchy
. Most of their tools are created internally at NYP. The MED
used to be directly connected to clinical information system for real time interactions. Use the Perl scripts for
regular pre
-
determined queries.



In terms of maintenance, once the terminology has been incorporated, the maintenance process is
relatively easy with regular weekly/monthly updates. For the new terminologies that are incorporated the
maintenance and updating process is more challenging. Currently a lot of ongoing work is managed by 3 FTEs and
they utilize 2 Unix Servers.

S&I Repository

(Kevin Puscas)


The S&I Repository is a Web
-
based platform and consists of three components: Artifact Manager,
Category Manager, and Information Browser. The architecture is an alfresco application linking external sources. It
requires a link with the NML UMLS to formulate searches based on accepted standard terms. The Repository has the
capability to: 1. manage artifacts (documents, models, links, etc.), 2. facilitate artifact lifecycles (publishing and
versioning), 3. establish contextual relationship and taxonomy of tags between artifacts, and 4. search both content and
metadata. It uses a “shopping cart” model similar to Amazon.com for reporting results and can manage links to web
sources. The Browser allows user to search artifacts after Wiki collaboration. Artifact Manager allows searches.


The artifacts can range from documents (PDF, Word, XML etc.), Media (audio/visual, JPEG,TIFF,MP3.
MOV etc), Links (URL, value sets), and Models. The Category Manager allows category groupings and application of
official meta
-
tags.
Vocabulary Value Sets are in a computable format defined by HITSC. They use the NLM’s UMLS
system, which has been defined by ONC as the source vocabulary.

Value Sets are composed of the information
needed and how those values are defined. The
vocabulary is not stored
by S&I Framework, but retrieved from
UMLS as needed. Once value Sets are returned to the repository by UMLS, identifiers are attached and the results
reported in XML.


This version of S&I framework is a work in progress and not the finalized product. One of the major
constraints is that S&I Repository handles only enumerated value set definitions and not intentional value set
definitions (values that change by criteria such as age and date). Only 14 of 160 available vocabularies are included,
although others can be easily added. Users must have a UMLS account to use it, but this prevents copyright
violations. It is limited to current UMLS version. Future capabilities are expected to be a full SVS profile to allow access
to the public, intentional value set definitions, access to non
-
UMLS vocabularies, and alternative authoring mechanisms
(ex
csv
).

20

DISTRIBUTED QUERY
NETWORKS

21

Summary of Distributed Query Networks

Questions

PopMedNet

i2B2/SHRINE

hQuery

Overview

and Current Status


• How do you define concept mapping
within your system (e.g. are you mapping in
between standards, or are you mapping
from standards to your local data
dictionary)?

• Are there any internal mechanism?

• Do you use any external tools?

• Are you able to maintain the integrity of
the original data in its native form (i.e. data
as collected and not modified)?


Facilitates creation, operation, and
governance of networks, each
network decides how to standardize
data and queries


PMN networks typically standardize
formatting but avoid concept
mapping, with some exceptions


Maintaining integrity
-

Networks
determine how to store data. Most
data models maintain local codes
even if the code is mapped


The

standard SHRINE
vocabulary is mapped to the
local data dictionary within
each site’s adaptor cell.
Internal tools are used. Data
is maintained in its original
form and then mapped to
various terminologies.


Concept mappings (if any)
are created in the
JavaScript passed in the
query.

There is

no special
support for this.



The codes and code
systems of the underlying
data are preserved

Integration and
Infrastructure


• How can you integrate with external tools
for mapping? JavaScript library? Java? Web
Services API?

• How do you see your framework
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?



Has a Web services API/ plug
-
in
architecture


Does NOT include any mapping
capability


PMN querying tools are
network
specific (SAS, SQL, etc)


Mappings are limited to industry
standard terminologies (NDC, ICD9,
HCPCS, LOINC)


External mapping tools
could be used to build the
mapping tables.


JavaScript library

Alignment to

QH

• Where does the mapping occur? Is it at
the Data Source level? Or at the
Information Requestor level? Or Both?

• Can it be easily implemented elsewhere?



It is the transport mechanism and
governance tool and is agnostic to the
implementation

decisions.


Networks will develop unique
solutions for querying


Mapping

is performed at
each site at the data source
level. It could also be
performed by a designated
intermediary.


Information Requestor
Level

Maintenance

Who maintains your concept mapping tool?

• Who maintains the mappings and how
often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance?



All network implementations use a
dedicated coordinating center to
oversee the integrity of the data and
use of the network


Requires substantial resources to
ensure appropriate use



I2b2/SHRINE personnel
maintain

our mapping tools.
Local teams maintain the
mappings. Cost depends on
number of mappings, most
sites have at least ½ FTE to
maintain i2b2 software,
mappings, and database for
SHRINE.


NA

22

STANDARDS

23

Summary of Standards

Questions

Intermountain

Health

Data Oriented Quality
Solution

(DOQS)

NYP

Terminology Services

Overview

and
Current Status


• How do your standards relate to
concept mapping?

• Are you able to maintain the
integrity of the original data in its
native form (i.e. data as collected
and not modified)?


Most data

can be preserved in
original (log files will eventually be
deleted)


P
reservation of data is the

responsibility of the sending system


Standardizes data

warehousing into
dimensions and sub
dimensions that can be
easily stored, retrieved,
managed and queried


Defined by the tasks (local to

local, local to standard etc)
and
types (equivalency,
hierarchical
, Relational)

of
mappings


Integrity

of data is maintained
by retrieving results according
the class or semantics

Integration and
Infrastructure


• What infrastructure is necessary
to implement / utilize your
standard?

• How do you see your standard
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?


Internal tools

-

Lexical matching
using Dice Coefficient


External tools

-

RELMA



Overarching

data
architecture should be
categorized by Category,
Role, and Perspective
within each dimension


Alignment to

QH

• Where does the mapping occur?
Is it at the Data Source level? Or at
the Information Requestor level?
Or Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere?


Query

Requestors level is where
mapping should occur because the
query responder would understand
their own data sets and be able to
respond more accurately than the
query requestor


The

standard refers to how
data should be organized
for querying so can be
implemented elsewhere if
they follow the particular
pathway


Maintenance

• Who maintains the development
of standards?

• Who maintains the mappings and
how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance and periodic
releases?


Maintain their own mappings and
are all internal to IM


Cost

-

14 FTEs that create models,
terminology, and mappings


1,200 HL7 interfaces


3 million patients


31,000 employees




NA


Once a terminology has been
incorporated, maintenance
consists of regular updates


New terminology
-
> difficult.

(example


Two i
ndependent
laboratories merged into single
laboratory information
system).


3 FTEs

and 2 Unix Servers

24

Summary of Standards

Questions

Common

Terminology Services 2

Ibeza

Overview

and Current Status


• How do your standards relate to
concept mapping?

• Are you able to maintain the
integrity of the original data in its
native form (i.e. data as collected
and not modified)?


CTS2 is an Official OMG Standard (Beta 1)


OMG Concept Mapping Specification Document


http://www.omg.org/spec/CTS2/1.0/Beta1/20120906



All data must be transformed into CTS2 compliant Data
Objects. For many formats (such as SNOMEDCT and
HL7), the transformation itself will be standardized.


Each clinical data concept is mapped to
SNOMED and/or LOINC


The integrity of the original data is
preserved by creating a dictionary of
clinical terms offered to the public so
everyone can use the same terms in their
clinical forms. New terminology submitted
is then revised by a team of experts. These
determine if the “new” term is added as
“new” or as an “alternate wording” of an
existing clinical term.

Integration and
Infrastructure


• What infrastructure is necessary
to implement / utilize your
standard?

• How do you see your standard
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?


Implementation are independent of any type of
technology infrastructure, but significant tooling around
facilitating implementation has been done
(
http://informatics.mayo.edu/cts2/framework/
)


CTS2 would provide a common set of APIs to enable the
creation, query and maintenance of concept mapping.


The standards allow Context Queries of
specific Clinical Data. For example you will
be able to query number of patients who
had a dilated fundus exam with an exam of
the macula for diabetic maculopathy.

Alignment to

QH

• Where does the mapping occur?
Is it at the Data Source level? Or
at the Information Requestor
level? Or Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere?


CTS2 can consume pre
-
mapped data from an arbitrary
data source. It also be used to create and incrementally
modify new mapping data.


Yes, implementation is modular


CTS2 is a large
specification but only parts of it need to be
implemented.


Both. At the creation of the glossary of
concepts mapped to SNOMED and LOINC.


And it can be easily implemented

Maintenance

• Who maintains the
development of standards?

• Who maintains the mappings
and how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance and periodic
releases?


OMG, HL7, Mayo Clinic maintain development of
standards


CTS2 does not specify where mappings come from, how
they are released, or what release cycle they follow.


Depending on CTS2 implementation, new releases
would require a new load of the source content, or an
incremental load of the change set.


A dedicated group of medical experts and
engineers oversees the integrity and
development of the standard.


Mappings are maintained by a dedicated
group of medical experts on a quarterly
basis

25

TOOLS

26

Questions

Resources

and
Tools

(
UMLS
/
UTS
,

RxNorm
/
RxNav
)

RELMA

Overview

and
Current Status


• How does your tool function?

• Are you able to maintain the
integrity of the original data in its
native form (i.e. data as collected and
not modified)?



Terminology integration system


Source transparency (most original
terminologies can be recreated from
the UMLS; generally not the case for
RxNorm)



Take any of four sources of local observations and
map them to LOINC using automated or manual
(facilitated) approaches


Since you have to get your information into LMOF
format (in one way or another), the mapping would
not affect the original data as long as you don’t
delete your original data after conversion to LMOF

Integration and
Infrastructure


• How can your tool be leveraged?
Are there any external APIs or other
interfaces?

• How do you see your tool
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?



UMLS:


-

GUI: UTS


-

API: SOAP
-
based


RxNorm


-

GUI: RxNav


-

API: SOAP
-
based +
RESTful


No API or interface


Representative of tools (another is
RxNav
) that
facilitate adoption of a single standard


LOINC also distributed with .
mdb

and could be
directly imported into another interface and used
to facilitate query composition, interpretation, or
response

Alignment to Query
Health

• Where does the mapping occur? Is
it at the Data Source level? Or at the
Information Requestor level? Or
Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere
?


Includes all major clinical
terminologies


Bridges

between query (text, code)
and data source (standard code)


Most likely at both the query composer and data
source


Query composer


makes sure the right question is
being asked


Data source


makes sure the question is translated
into local terms


RELMA

is specific to LOINC

Maintenance

• Who maintains your concept
mapping tool?

• Who maintains the mappings and
how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance
?


NLM develops the UMLS

and RxNorm
(data + tooling)


Release schedule


-

UMLS: twice yearly


-

RxNorm: monthly


No fee to the end user (but license
agreement required*)


Regenstrief Institute and multiple partners around
the world maintain tool


The mappings are created by each user of RELMA


The tool is updated with LOINC, twice yearly


27

Summary of Tools

Questions

LexEVS

6.0

3M


Healthcare Data Dictionary

Overview

and
Current Status


• How
does
your tool function?

• Are you able to maintain the
integrity of the original data in its
native form (
i.e
. data as collected and
not modified)?



LexEVS

6.0 provides a set of APIs that can be used
by an application to create, query and maintain
concept mapping.


All data must be transformed into
LexEVS

compliant Data Objects.


Mapping to local data dictionary =
centralized concept mapping; not point
-
to
-
point


Can maintain integrity original

data

Integration and
Infrastructure


• How can your tool be leveraged?
Are there any external APIs or other
interfaces?

• How do you see your tool
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?



External APIs are provided.


LexEVS

would provide a set of APIs to enable the
creation, query and maintenance of concept
mapping.



Internal Tools
-

Quality Control?


Inter
-
rator

agreement; internal terminology models; db
triggers and constraints; business logic in
domain specific tools


External technologies, but all our tooling is
in
-
house


Web services API = CTS v1.2


Alignment

with QH RI
-

Native integration or
through the API

Alignment to Query
Health

• Where does the mapping occur? Is
it at the Data Source level? Or at the
Information Requestor level? Or
Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere
?


LexEVS

can consume pre
-
mapped data from
arbitrary data sources (OWL, RRF,
LexGrid

XML).
It also be used to create and incrementally
modify new mapping data.


LexEVS

is an implementation and it can be easily
deployed elsewhere.



Both; Local terminologies (terms and codes)
are integrated with standards through
concept mapping


Can be easily implemented

Maintenance

• Who maintains your concept
mapping tool?

• Who maintains the mappings and
how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance
?


Mayo Clinic maintains the
LexEVS

code, but it is
open source and freely available to the
community.


LexEVS

does not specify where mappings come
from, how they are released, or what release
cycle they follow.


New releases would require a new load of the
source content, or an incremental load of the
change set.


Domain specific mapping tools maintained
by a Development team


A team of nearly 30 SMEs with domain
specific clinical expertise and informatics
training


28

Summary of Tools

Questions

Ibeza

Overview

and Current
Status


• How
does
your tool function?

• Are you able to maintain the
integrity of the original data in its
native form (
i.e
. data as collected and
not modified)?



Each clinical data concept is mapped to SNOMED
and/or LOINC


The integrity of the original data is preserved by
creating a dictionary of clinical terms offered to the
public so everyone can use the same terms in their
clinical forms. New terminology submitted is then
revised by a team of experts. These determine if
the “new” term is added as “new” or as an
“alternate wording” of an existing clinical term.

Integration and
Infrastructure


• How can your tool be leveraged?
Are there any external APIs or other
interfaces?

• How do you see your tool
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?



Our standards allow Context Queries of specific
Clinical Data. For example you will be able to query
number of patients who had a dilated fundus exam
with an exam of the macula for diabetic
maculopathy.

Alignment to
Query Health

• Where does the mapping occur? Is
it at the Data Source level? Or at the
Information Requestor level? Or
Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere
?


Both. At the creation of the glossary of concepts
mapped to SNOMED and LOINC.


And it can be easily implemented

Maintenance

• Who maintains your concept
mapping tool?

• Who maintains the mappings and
how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance
?


A dedicated group of medical experts and
engineers oversees the integrity and development
of the standard.


Mappings are maintained by a dedicated group of
medical experts on a quarterly basis

29

Summary of Tools

APPENDIX

30

1. Presentation Schedule 2011
-
2012



Presentation Date

Presenter

Framework/Tool/Standard

Category

1

12/13/11

Andy Gregorowicz

hQuery


Distributed

Network

2

12/13/11 (cont. 12/20/11)

Shawn Murphy

i2b2 /
SHRINE

Distributed

Network

3

12/20/11

Stan Huff

Intermountain
Health

Standard

4

12/20/11 (cont. 1/3/12)

Rick Biehl

DOQS
-

Data Warehousing and
Concept
Mapping

Standard

5

1/3/12

Jeff Brown

PopMedNet

Distributed

Network

6

1/3/12

Olivier Bodenreider

National Library of
Medicine

Tools

7

1/10/12

Victor Beraja

Ibeza

Standard

8

1/10/12

Rhonda Facile

CDISC
SHARE

Standard

9

1/17/12

Shaun Shakib

3M
-

Healthcare Data
Dictionary

Tool

10

1/17/12

David Baorto

NYP Terminology
Services

Tools

11

1/17/12

Zeshan Rajput

RELMA (Regenstrief)

Tool

12

1/24/12

Rita

Scichilone

AHIMA

Concept Mapping

Principles

13

-

14

1/24/12

Craig Stancl and

Kevin Peterson

Lex

EVS


CTS 2

Tools

16

1/24/12

Jacob Reider

ONC Senior Policy Advisor

NA

17

1/31/12

Kevin Puscas

S&I Repository

Value Set

Definition Mgmt

18

2/7/12

Floyd Isenberg

NQF

Value Sets

19

2/14/12

Keith Boone

IHE SVS Profiles

Standard

31

2. Questions for Considerations

Frameworks


(Ex.
-

i2B2, PMN, hQuery)

Tools

(Ex. RxNav, RELMA, LexEVS)

Standards

Overview

and
Current
Status


• How do you define concept mapping within your
system (e.g. are you mapping in between standards, or
are you mapping from standards to your local data
dictionary)?

• Are there any internal mechanism?

• Do you use any external tools?

• Are you able to maintain the integrity of the original
data in its native form (i.e. data as collected and not
modified)?

• How does your tool function?

• Are you able to maintain the
integrity of the original data in its
native form (i.e. data as collected
and not modified)?


• How do your standards relate to
concept mapping?

• Are you able to maintain the integrity
of the original data in its native form
(i.e. data as collected and not
modified)?

Integration
and
Infrastructure


• How can you integrate with external tools for
mapping? JavaScript library? Java? Web Services API?

• How do you see your framework integrating with the
QH Reference Implementation solution?


• How can your tool be leveraged?
Are there any external APIs or
other interfaces?

• How do you see your tool
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?


• What infrastructure is necessary to
implement / utilize your standard?

• How do you see your standard
integrating with the QH Reference
Implementation solution?

Alignment to
Query Health

• Where does the mapping occur? Is it at the Data
Source level? Or at the Information Requestor level? Or
Both?

• Can it be easily implemented elsewhere?


• Where does the mapping occur?
Is it at the Data Source level? Or at
the Information Requestor level?
Or Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere
?

• Where does the mapping occur? Is it
at the Data Source level? Or at the
Information Requestor level? Or Both?

• Can it be easily implemented
elsewhere?

Maintenance

Who maintains your concept mapping tool?

• Who maintains the mappings and how often are they
released?

• What is the associated cost with maintenance?


• Who maintains your concept
mapping tool?

• Who maintains the mappings and
how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance
?

• Who maintains the development of
standards?

• Who maintains the mappings and
how often are they released?

• What is the associated cost with
maintenance and periodic releases?

32