More Related Content
Similar to 2010 07 15 - Clinical LOINC Tutorial - Documents
Similar to 2010 07 15 - Clinical LOINC Tutorial - Documents (20)
More from dvreeman
More from dvreeman (20)
2010 07 15 - Clinical LOINC Tutorial - Documents
- 1. Clinical LOINC Meeting Clinical LOINC® Tutorial Documents Daniel J. Vreeman, PT, DPT, MSc Assistant Research Professor, Indiana University School of Medicine Associate Director of Terminology Services, Regenstrief Institute, Inc 07.15.2010 Copyright © 2010
- 2. Overview • Origins of a Document Ontology • HL7/LOINC Document Ontology Model • Evaluation, Evolution, Ongoing Development – Empiric analyses • Future directions
- 3. Origins of a Document Ontology
- 4. Rationale • As with other domains, local systems have idiosyncratic names for clinical documents • Need a common, controlled vocabulary • Needed for HL7 CDA standard – HL7 v2 too • Timeline – 06/2000 Document Ontology Task Force – 09/2003 First axis values and LOINC codes – ~2005 Expanded SMD domain – 10/2007 Revised axis value approval
- 5. Document Type Codes • Created to provide consistent semantics for names of documents exchanged b/w independent systems • Supported Uses – Retrieval – Organization – Preparation of templates – Display Frazier P, Rossi-Mori A, Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Huff SM. The creation of an ontology of clinical document names. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 1):94-8.
- 6. What is a Document? • Document = Collection of information – Sentences, sections – Distinguished from “panels”, which have enumerated discrete contents of result elements • Formal Document Ontology model/rules apply to “clinical notes” – Clinical document (per HL7 CDA), produced by clinicians spontaneously or in response to a request for consultation – Does not apply to “reports”, produced in response to an order for a procedure
- 7. Approach • Started with empiric analysis of over 2000 document names – Mayo, 3M/Intermountain, VA in SLC, VA in Nashville • Find the level of granularity that best meets the exchange use case
- 8. Finding the Commonality • Ultra-specific local names: – Dr. Evil’s Friday Afternoon Pain Clinic Note • Generalizable elements: – Outpatient Pain Clinic Note • Local codes may still be needed – Can send both local and universal codes in HL7 – Mapping to the universal code enables interoperability and aggregation
- 9. Document Ontology Model Multi-axial / Poly-hierarchical
- 10. Names Based on Document Content • Names based on the expected information content • NOT based on the document format – Text, scanned images, structured entry form, XML, etc would all have the same LOINC code if the information content was the same Assume that these other important attributes would be sent in different fields of the message
- 11. What’s NOT in a Document Name • Specific author • Specific location of service or dictation • Date of service • Status (e.g. signed, unsigned) • Security/privacy flags (protected) • Updates/amendments to a document Assume that these other important attributes would be sent in different fields of the message
- 12. Model of Document Names • Subject Matter Domain – E.g. Cardiology, Pediatric Cardiology, Physical Therapy • Role – Author training/professional classification (not @ subspecialty) – E.g. Physician, Nursing, Case Manager, Therapist, Patient • Setting – Modest extension of CMS’s definition (not equivalent to location) – E.g. Inpatient Hospital, Outpatient, Emergency Department • Type of Service – Service or activity provided to/for the patient (or other subject) – E.g. Consultation, History and Physical, Discharge Summary • Kind of Document – General structure of the document – E.g. Note, Letter, Consent
- 13. Rules for Constructing Names • LOINC has enumerated value lists for axes – Published in Users Guide – Development edition at loinc.org • Names need a Kind of Document value and at least one of the other four axes Component Prop Time System Scale Method <Type of Service> <Kind of Document> Find Pt <Se8ng> Doc <SMD>.<Role> • Combinations from within an axis – Allowed where they make sense (SMD, Service) – Represented with a plus (+) • LOINC Class = DOC.CLINRPT
- 14. Example LOINC Codes Component Prop Time System Scale Method Group counseling note Find Pt InpaBent Hospital Doc {Provider} EvaluaBon and management note Find Pt OutpaBent Doc {Provider} EvaluaBon and management note Find Pt {Se8ng} Doc {Provider} History and physical note Find Pt {Se8ng} Doc {Provider} IniBal evaluaBon note Find Pt {Se8ng} Doc Physician Subsequent evaluaBon note Find Pt {Se8ng} Doc Nurse PracBBoner {curly braces} notation: send that content as a separate item in the message (field or segment)
- 15. Hierarchy in LOINC • Constructed a first-pass Component hierarchy based on the Type of Service axis – Ignored Kind of Document • Multi-axial hierarchy is generated based on the component hierarchy – (available as separate download) • Could imagine construction of other hierarchies, like context-specific use cases
- 17. Evaluation, Evolution, and Development We’re not done yet
- 18. Ontology Evolution and Refinement • Ongoing evaluation and evolution • Exceptional contributions from Columbia University and the VA • In particular, expanded original SMD value list with ABMS specialty names and iterative discussion Shapiro JS, Bakken S, Hyun S, Melton GB, Schlegel C, Johnson SB. Document ontology: supporting narrative documents in electronic health records. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005:684-‐8.
- 19. Iterative Evaluation Case Study: NYPH-CUMC SMD Role Se8ng Type of Service Kind of Document Overall Dis?nct Original CDO 26.7% 99.9% 99.9% 43.5% 100% 23.4% 7.9% (n=894) Expanded CDO 98.6% 100% 100% 99.9% 99.9% 98.5% 39.1% (n=935) • Hyun S, Shapiro JS, Melton G, Schlegel C, Stetson PD, Johnson SB, Bakken S. Iterative evaluation of the Health Level 7-‐-‐Logical Observation IdentiOiers Names and Codes Clinical Document Ontology for representing clinical document names: a case report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 May-‐Jun;16(3):395-‐9. • Summary • More documents could be fully speciOied in with the expanded CDO • Many documents map to one LOINC code – factor of local names and suitable LOINC values • Inter-‐rater reliability was very good
- 20. Nursing SMD Role Se8ng Type of Service Kind of Document Overall Dis?nct SMD-‐enhanced 74% 100% 100% 100% 100% 74.5% 33% CDO (2005) (n=94) Hyun S, Shapiro JS, Melton G, Schlegel C, Stetson PD, Johnson SB, Bakken S. Iterative evaluation of the Health Level 7-‐-‐Logical Observation IdentiOiers Names and Codes Clinical Document Ontology for representing clinical document names: a case report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 May-‐Jun;16(3):395-‐9. • In a separate analysis, 38% of the section headings (n=308) from nursing documents could be mapped to existing LOINC codes • Hyun S, Bakken S. Toward the creation of an ontology for nursing document sections: mapping section names to the LOINC semantic model. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:364-‐8.
- 21. German University Hospital • Used LOINC v2.24 (original DocOnt terms) • Of 86 the document types for 1.2 million documents: – 44% mapped to LOINC – 44% had available mapping deemed not specific enough – 12% had no LOINC match • A LOINC code existed for 93.1% of documents in their set (by volume) Dugas M, Thun S, Frankewitsch T, Heitmann KU. LOINC codes for hospital information systems documents: a case study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 May-‐Jun;16(3):400-‐3.
- 23. Ongoing Development • A work-in-progress • LOINC Users’ Guide is the definitive source for current policy – Always available at http://loinc.org • Collaboration/discussion – Clinical LOINC meetings, HL7 SDTC – LOINC website – LOINC Users’ Forum: http:/forum.loinc.org
- 26. Future Directions • Continued harmonization of v1 and v2 axis values • Axis definitions • Extension/refinement to other Kind of Documents • Empiric analysis of document contents