ABSTRACT
Background High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs. Curating data across healthcare systems with common data models (CDMs) would help these systems move towards high-value healthcare. However, meaningful patient outcomes, such as function, must be represented in commonly used CDMs, such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Yet the extent that functional assessments are included in the OMOP CDM is unclear.
Objective Examine the extent that functional assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are included in the OMOP CDM.
Methods After identifying functional assessments from clinical practice guideline, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. After this mapping, we measured agreement with the reviewer team with 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 again examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment.
Results Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% of neurologic assessments were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% of orthopaedic assessments were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (neurologic assessments: 2.2±1.3; orthopaedic assessments: 4.3±4.4).
Conclusions The OMOP CDM includes a portion of functional assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions. Many assessments did not have any term in the OMOP CDM. Thus, expanding the OMOP CDM to include recommended functional assessments and creating guidelines for mapping functional assessments would improve our ability to harmonize these data across healthcare systems.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in this work are included in the manuscript.
