Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) Representation of Medication Data Derived from German Procedure Classification Codes (OPS) Using Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) Compliant Terminology

Saß, Julian; Zabka, Susanne; Essenwanger, Andrea; Schepers, Josef; Boeker, Martin; Thun, Sylvia

doi:10.3233/shti210074

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The sample was drawn from the benchmarking program of the Professional Association of German Anaesthetists (BDA), the Professional Association of German Surgeons (BDC) and the Association for Operating Theatre Management (VOPM), in which more than 320 hospitals nationwide have participated since 2008.The service providers of different care levels transmit their operating theatre process data, which includes surgery-related information such as the operation and procedure code (OPS) [18] and this was used to evaluate the process data in a standardised manner, thus enabling a direct comparison with other healthcare providers [19].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Care in Specialist Ophthalmology Departments: Structure and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Karaca¹,

Agostini²,

Bialas³

et al. 2022

Klin Monbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Specialist ophthalmology departments contribute to the surgical care of German patients. Outpatient and inpatient surgeries were restricted during the COVID-19 pandemic and led to a sharp decline in the number of cases in ophthalmological care. The aim of this analysis was to improve the understanding of the logistic structures of medical facilities as well as the effects of the pandemic. Material/method: Based on reported process data, a sample of the specialist ophthalmological departments were examined based on OPS codes and data submitted between 01.01.2017 and 31.05.2021 according to the bench-marking program of the Professional Association of German Anaesthetists (BDA), the Professional Association of German Surgeons (BDC) and the Association for Operating Theatre Management (VOPM). Results: 18 ophthalmology departments from Germany were analysed. After the decline in the number of cases (by temporarily up to 48%) during the first wave of the pandemic, the case numbers of all interventions assessed as non-urgent continued to be reduced. While intravitreal injections hardly decreased during the first wave (-16%), significant drops in the coverage of cataract surgery (-79%), vitrectomies (-35%), glaucoma surgery (-59%), strabismus surgery (-95%) and eyelid surgery (-52%) were found. One exception was intravitreal injection, which stabilised at a lower level early on during the pandemic. Overall, the number of cases during the later phases of the pandemic were significantly reduced below the level of previous years, despite the maintenance of emergency care. The underuse was variable for different interventions. Conclusion: In addition to self-reported figures, the analysed process data demonstrates the effect that various factors had on elective as well as urgent operations within hospital care during the pandemic. Despite partial stabilisation of some services, a relevant supply gap for outpatient and inpatient interventions was identified - with corresponding effects on the eye health of the population, while compensation or performance enhancement have not taken place to date. Facing the growing preload and the demographic development, future structures must therefore allow for an increase in the performance of the specialist ophthalmological departments. Hintergrund: Ophthalmologische Hauptabteilungen tragen zur chirurgischen Versorgung deutscher Patienten bei. Ambulante und stationäre Operationen wurden im Rahmen der COVID-19 Pandemie eingeschränkt. Die Pandemie hat zu einem starken Rückgang der Fallzahlen in der augenärztlichen Versorgung geführt. Ziel dieser Analyse ist es, das Verständnis für die Versorgungsstrukturen und die Auswirkungen der Pandemie zu verbessern. Material/Methode: Auf Basis gemeldeter Prozessdaten wurde eine Stichprobe ophthalmologischer Hauptabteilungen untersucht, die OPS-Codes und Daten zwischen dem 01.01.2017 und 31.05.2021 an das Benchmarking-Programm des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Anästhesisten (BDA), des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Chirurgen (BDC) und dem Verband für OP-Management (VOPM) übermittelten. Ergebnisse: Die ausgewerteten 18 ophthalmologischen Hauptabteilungen zeigten einen starken Rückgang stationärer und ambulanter Fallzahlen. Während die Anzahl intravitrealer Injektionen in der ersten Welle kaum zurückging (-16 %) waren für die Kataraktchirurgie (-79 %), Vitrektomie (-35 %), Glaukomchirurgie (-59 %), strabologische Eingriffe (-95 %) und Lidchirurgie (-52 %) deutliche Rückgänge zu verzeichnen. Auch nach der ersten Pandemiewelle blieben die Fallzahlen aller nicht dringlich bewerteten Eingriffe reduziert. Unabhängig von der aufrecht erhaltenen Notfallversorgung war die Minderversorgung für die untersuchten Prozeduren unterschiedlich ausgeprägt. Schlussfolgerung: Die ophthalmologische Versorgung in den untersuchten Hauptabteilungen wurde nach den gesetzlichen Vorgaben reduziert und aufrechterhalten. Trotz einer teilweisen Stabilisierung einiger Leistungen muss eine relevante Versorgungslücke für ambulante und stationäre Eingriffe – mit entsprechenden Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit der Bevölkerung – festgestellt werden, nachdem weder Kompensation noch Leistungssteigerung bisher stattgefunden haben. Angesichts einer aufgebauten Vorlast und der demographischen Entwicklung, müssen die zukünftigen Strukturen eine Leistungssteigerung der Hauptabteilungen ermöglichen.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical Care in Specialist Ophthalmology Departments: Structure and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Karaca¹,

Agostini²,

Bialas³

et al. 2022

Klin Monbl Augenheilkd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of the 49 studies, the majority were conducted in Germany (47%, n=23) [12,26,[28][29][30][31]34,35,[40][41][42][45][46][47]52,53,[56][57][58]60,62,63,69], the United States (27%, n=13) [22,25,36,44,[48][49][50]61,[64][65][66]68,70], and Australia (6%, n=3) [1,43,67]. The remaining studies were performed in Austria (2%, n=1) [32], Canada (2%, n=1) [24], France (2%, n=1) [51], Greece (2%, n=1) [59], Japan (2%, n=1) [27], Pakistan (2%, n=1) [38], Spain (2%, n=1) [55], Switzerland (2%, n=1) [39], Taiwan (2%, n=1) [23], and the United Kingdom (2%, n=1)…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of medical specialty, most (55%, 27/49) of the studies [24,[27][28][29][30][31][32]34,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]44,46,48,49,53,56,[60][61][62][63]67,70] were using a generic approach-implementable in any kind of specialty (Table 2). Of the remaining studies, 16% (8/49) use cases focused on infectious disease [1,22,23,26,45,47,50,59], whereas 12% (6/49) focused on oncology [25,55,57,58,65,66] and 8% (4/49) on genomics [43,52,68,69].…”

Section: Study Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the 49 studies, 37% (n=18) did not report on or use additional standards or terminologies [12,22-24,27,28,30-32, 38,39,48,50,55,57,64,66,69]. SNOMED CT [1,25,26,35,37,43,[45][46][47]51,55,56,65,70] and LOINC [25,26,35,37,42-45, 47,49,51,55,56,58,61,65,68,70] were reported to be used by 29% (n=14) and 37% (n=18) of the studies, respectively; 18% (n=9) of the studies used International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision [25,26,35,37,49,51,58,65,68] and 12% (n=6) used OMOP CDM [26,29,35,47,52,60]; and 43% (n=21) of the studies used additional standards which were categorized under "Other" (Table 1) [26,34-37,40,42,43,45-47,49,51,56,58-60, 62,63,67,70]. The implemented FHIR resources by each study are listed in Table 2; 5 (10%) studies did not precisely list their FHIR resources used [36,38,56,64,69].…”

Section: International Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for Interoperability in Health Research: Systematic Review

Vorisek¹,

Lehne²,

Klopfenstein³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Inform

Self Cite

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The standard Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) is widely used in health information technology. However, its use as a standard for health research is still less prevalent. To use existing data sources more efficiently for health research, data interoperability becomes increasingly important. FHIR provides solutions by offering resource domains such as "Public Health & Research" and "Evidence-Based Medicine" while using already established web technologies. Therefore, FHIR could help standardize data across different data sources and improve interoperability in health research. Objective:The aim of our study was to provide a systematic review of existing literature and determine the current state of FHIR implementations in health research and possible future directions. Methods:We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from 2011 to 2022. Studies investigating the use of FHIR in health research were included. Articles published before 2011, abstracts, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions were excluded. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and registered this study with PROSPERO (CRD42021235393). Data synthesis was done in tables and figures. Results:We identified a total of 998 studies, of which 49 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of the 49 studies, most (73%, n=36) covered the domain of clinical research, whereas the remaining studies focused on public health or epidemiology (6%, n=3) or did not specify their research domain (20%, n=10). Studies used FHIR for data capture (29%, n=14), standardization of data (41%, n=20), analysis (12%, n=6), recruitment (14%, n=7), and consent management (4%, n=2). Most (55%, 27/49) of the studies had a generic approach, and 55% (12/22) of the studies focusing on specific medical specialties (infectious disease, genomics, oncology, environmental health, imaging, and pulmonary hypertension) reported their solutions to be conferrable to other use cases. Most (63%, 31/49) of the studies reported using additional data models or terminologies: Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (29%, n=14), Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (37%, n=18), International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (18%, n=9), Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model (12%, n=6), and others (43%, n=21). Only 4 (8%) studies used a FHIR resource from the domain "Public Health & Research." Limitations using FHIR included the possible change in the content of FHIR resources, safety, legal matters, and the need for a FHIR server. Conclusions:Our review found that FHIR can be implemented in health research, and the areas of application are broad and generalizable in most use cases. The implementation of international terminologies was common, and other standards such as the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership common data model could be used as a complement to FHIR. Limitations such...

show abstract

Arbeitsgruppe Interoperabilität: Kerndatensatz und Informationssysteme für Integration und Austausch von Daten in der Medizininformatik-Initiative

Ammon,

Kurscheidt,

Buckow

et al. 2024

Bundesgesundheitsbl

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDie Arbeitsgruppe Interoperabilität der Medizininformatik-Initiative (MII) ist die Plattform für die Abstimmung übergreifender Vorgehensweisen, Datenstrukturen und Schnittstellen zwischen den Datenintegrationszentren (DIZ) der Universitätskliniken und nationalen bzw. internationalen Interoperabilitätsgremien. Ziel ist die gemeinsame inhaltliche und technische Ausgestaltung einer über das Forschungsdatenportal für Gesundheit nutzbaren verteilten Infrastruktur zur Sekundärnutzung klinischer Versorgungsdaten. Wichtige Rahmenbedingungen sind dabei Datenschutz und IT-Sicherheit für die Nutzung von Gesundheitsdaten in der biomedizinischen Forschung. Hierfür werden in dezidierten Taskforces geeignete Methoden eingesetzt, um prozessuale, syntaktische und semantische Interoperabilität für Datennutzungsprojekte zu ermöglichen. So wurde der MII-Kerndatensatz, bestehend aus mehreren Modulen mit zugehörigen Informationsmodellen, entwickelt und mittels des Standards HL7® FHIR® implementiert, um fachliche und technische Vorgaben für die interoperable Datenbereitstellung von Versorgungsdaten durch die DIZ zu ermöglichen. Zur näheren Beschreibung dieser Datensätze dienen internationale Terminologien und konsentierte Metadaten. Die Gesamtarchitektur, einschließlich übergreifender Schnittstellen, setzt die methodischen und rechtlichen Anforderungen an eine verteilte Datennutzungsinfrastruktur z. B. durch Bereitstellung pseudonymisierter Daten oder föderierte Analysen um. Mit diesen Ergebnissen der Arbeitsgruppe Interoperabilität stellt die MII eine zukunftsweisende Lösung für den Austausch und die Nutzung von Routinedaten vor, deren Anwendbarkeit über den Zweck der Forschung hinausgeht und eine wesentliche Rolle in der digitalen Transformation des Gesundheitswesens spielen kann.

show abstract

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) Representation of Medication Data Derived from German Procedure Classification Codes (OPS) Using Identification of Medicinal Products (IDMP) Compliant Terminology

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Surgical Care in Specialist Ophthalmology Departments: Structure and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Surgical Care in Specialist Ophthalmology Departments: Structure and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) for Interoperability in Health Research: Systematic Review

Arbeitsgruppe Interoperabilität: Kerndatensatz und Informationssysteme für Integration und Austausch von Daten in der Medizininformatik-Initiative

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About