- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Ruppert, Laura"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item The Indiana Learning Health System Initiative: Early experience developing a collaborative, regional learning health system(Wiley, 2021-07) Schleyer, Titus; Williams, Linda; Gottlieb, Jonathan; Weaver, Christopher; Saysana, Michele; Azar, Jose; Sadowski, Josh; Frederick, Chris; Hui, Siu; Kara, Areeba; Ruppert, Laura; Zappone, Sarah; Bushey, Michael; Grout, Randall; Embi, Peter J.; Medicine, School of MedicineIntroduction Learning health systems (LHSs) are usually created and maintained by single institutions or healthcare systems. The Indiana Learning Health System Initiative (ILHSI) is a new multi-institutional, collaborative regional LHS initiative led by the Regenstrief Institute (RI) and developed in partnership with five additional organizations: two Indiana-based health systems, two schools at Indiana University, and our state-wide health information exchange. We report our experiences and lessons learned during the initial 2-year phase of developing and implementing the ILHSI. Methods The initial goals of the ILHSI were to instantiate the concept, establish partnerships, and perform LHS pilot projects to inform expansion. We established shared governance and technical capabilities, conducted a literature review-based and regional environmental scan, and convened key stakeholders to iteratively identify focus areas, and select and implement six initial joint projects. Results The ILHSI successfully collaborated with its partner organizations to establish a foundational governance structure, set goals and strategies, and prioritize projects and training activities. We developed and deployed strategies to effectively use health system and regional HIE infrastructure and minimize information silos, a frequent challenge for multi-organizational LHSs. Successful projects were diverse and included deploying a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Standards (FHIR)-based tool across emergency departments state-wide, analyzing free-text elements of cross-hospital surveys, and developing models to provide clinical decision support based on clinical and social determinants of health. We also experienced organizational challenges, including changes in key leadership personnel and varying levels of engagement with health system partners, which impacted initial ILHSI efforts and structures. Reflecting on these early experiences, we identified lessons learned and next steps. Conclusions Multi-organizational LHSs can be challenging to develop but present the opportunity to leverage learning across multiple organizations and systems to benefit the general population. Attention to governance decisions, shared goal setting and monitoring, and careful selection of projects are important for early success.Item Predicting pharmacotherapeutic outcomes for type 2 diabetes: An evaluation of three approaches to leveraging electronic health record data from multiple sources(Elsevier, 2022-05) Tarumi, Shinji; Takeuchi, Wataru; Qi, Rong; Ning, Xia; Ruppert, Laura; Ban, Hideyuki; Robertson, Daniel H.; Schleyer, Titus; Kawamoto, Kensaku; Medicine, School of MedicineElectronic health record (EHR) data are increasingly used to develop prediction models to support clinical care, including the care of patients with common chronic conditions. A key challenge for individual healthcare systems in developing such models is that they may not be able to achieve the desired degree of robustness using only their own data. A potential solution—combining data from multiple sources—faces barriers such as the need for data normalization and concerns about sharing patient information across institutions. To address these challenges, we evaluated three alternative approaches to using EHR data from multiple healthcare systems in predicting the outcome of pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Two of the three approaches, named Selecting Better (SB) and Weighted Average (WA), allowed the data to remain within institutional boundaries by using pre-built prediction models; the third, named Combining Data (CD), aggregated raw patient data into a single dataset. The prediction performance and prediction coverage of the resulting models were compared to single-institution models to help judge the relative value of adding external data and to determine the best method to generate optimal models for clinical decision support. The results showed that models using WA and CD achieved higher prediction performance than single-institution models for common treatment patterns. CD outperformed the other two approaches in prediction coverage, which we defined as the number of treatment patterns predicted with an Area Under Curve of 0.70 or more. We concluded that 1) WA is an effective option for improving prediction performance for common treatment patterns when data cannot be shared across institutional boundaries and 2) CD is the most effective approach when such sharing is possible, especially for increasing the range of treatment patterns that can be predicted to support clinical decision making.