Discussion of "Combining Health Data Uses to Ignite Health System Learning"

The Heimdall Framework for Supporting Characterisation of Learning Health Systems

BACKGROUND

Learning Health Systems (LHS) can focus population medicine and Evidence Based Practice; smart technology delivering the next generation of improved healthcare described as Precision Medicine, and yet researchers in the LHS domain presently lack the ability to recognise their relevant works as falling within this domain.

OBJECTIVE

To review LHS literature and develop a framework describing the domain that can be used as a tool to analyse the literature and support researchers to identify health informatics investigations as falling with the domain of LHS.

METHOD

A scoping review is used to identify literature on which analysis was performed. This resolved the ontology and framework. The ontology was applied to quantify the distribution of classifications of LHS solutions. The framework was used to analyse and characterise the various works within the body of LHS literature.

RESULTS

The ontology and framework developed was shown to be easily applicable to the literature, consistently describing and representing the goals, intentions and solutions of each LHS investigation in the literature. More proposed or potential solutions are described in the literature than implemented LHS. This suggests immaturity in the domain and points to the existence of barriers preventing LHS realisation.

CONCLUSION

The lack of an ontology and framework may have been one of the causes for the failure to describe research works as falling within the LHS domain. Using our ontology and framework, LHS research works could be easily classified, demonstrating the comprehensiveness of our approach in contrast to earlier efforts.

Research Strategies for Biomedical and Health Informatics. Some Thought-provoking and Critical Proposals to Encourage Scientific Debate on the Nature of Good Research in Medical Informatics

BACKGROUND

Medical informatics, or biomedical and health informatics (BMHI), has become an established scientific discipline. In all such disciplines there is a certain inertia to persist in focusing on well-established research areas and to hold on to well-known research methodologies rather than adopting new ones, which may be more appropriate.

OBJECTIVES

To search for answers to the following questions: What are research fields in informatics, which are not being currently adequately addressed, and which methodological approaches might be insufficiently used? Do we know about reasons? What could be consequences of change for research and for education?

METHODS

Outstanding informatics scientists were invited to three panel sessions on this topic in leading international conferences (MIE 2015, Medinfo 2015, HEC 2016) in order to get their answers to these questions.

RESULTS

A variety of themes emerged in the set of answers provided by the panellists. Some panellists took the theoretical foundations of the field for granted, while several questioned whether the field was actually grounded in a strong theoretical foundation. Panellists proposed a range of suggestions for new or improved approaches, methodologies, and techniques to enhance the BMHI research agenda.

CONCLUSIONS

The field of BMHI is on the one hand maturing as an academic community and intellectual endeavour. On the other hand vendor-supplied solutions may be too readily and uncritically accepted in health care practice. There is a high chance that BMHI will continue to flourish as an important discipline; its innovative interventions might then reach the original objectives of advancing science and improving health care outcomes.

The tip of the iceberg: challenges of accessing hospital electronic health record data for biological data mining

Modern cohort studies include self-reported measures on disease, behavior and lifestyle, sensor-based observations from mobile phones and wearables, and rich -omics data. Follow-up is often achieved through electronic health record (EHR) linkages across primary and secondary healthcare providers. Historically however, researchers typically only get to see the tip of the iceberg: coded administrative data relating to healthcare claims which mainly record billable diagnoses and procedures. The rich data generated during the clinical pathway remain submerged and inaccessible. While some institutions and initiatives have made good progress in unlocking such deep phenotypic data within their institutional realms, access at scale still remains challenging. Here we outline and discuss the main technical and social challenges associated with accessing these data for data mining and hauling the entire iceberg.