A data base approach to laboratory computerization

Structure, functions, and activities of a research support informatics section

The authors describe a research group that supports the needs of investigators seeking data from an electronic medical record system. Since its creation in 1972, the Regenstrief Medical Records System has captured and stored more than 350 million discrete coded observations on two million patients. This repository has become a central data source for prospective and retrospective research. It is accessed by six data analysts--working closely with the institutional review board--who provide investigators with timely and accurate data while protecting patient and provider privacy and confidentiality. From January 1, 1999, to July 31, 2002, data analysts tracked their activities involving 47,559 hours of work predominantly for physicians (54%). While data retrieval (36%) and analysis (25%) were primary activities, data analysts also actively collaborated with researchers. Primary objectives of data provided to investigators were to address disease-specific (35.4%) and drug-related (12.2%) questions, support guideline implementation (13.1%), and probe various aspects of clinical epidemiology (5.7%). Outcomes of these endeavors included 117 grants (including 300,000 US dollars per year salary support for data analysts) and 139 papers in peer-reviewed journals by investigators who rated the support provided by data analysts as extremely valuable.

Development of a computerized laboratory alerting system

Using the capabilities of the HELP medical information system at LDS Hospital, a Computerized Laboratory Alerting System (CLAS) was developed. CLAS monitors and alerts for the presence of life-threatening conditions in hospitalized patients which are indicated by laboratory test results. Alerts are posted on computer terminals on the hospital's nursing divisions, where they are reviewed and acknowledged by hospital staff so that appropriate treatment can be rapidly instituted. CLAS was evaluated to determine its effectiveness in relaying alerts to the clinical staff, and improvements were made to develop an effective user interface. Initial average alert response times on nursing divisions ranged from 5.1 to 58.2 hr. The average alert response time dropped to 3.6 hr when alert review was integrated with laboratory result review, and to 0.1 hr after installation of a flashing light to notify hospital staff of the presence of new alerts.