Common and Unique Barriers to the Exchange of Administrative Healthcare Data in Environmental Public Health Tracking Program
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Design
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Timeliness
4.2. Data Granularity
4.3. Acquiring Data from Border States
4.4. Data Cleaning
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McGeehin, M.A.; Qualters, J.R.; Niskar, A.S. National environmental public health tracking program: Bridging the information gap. Environ. Health Perspect. 2004, 112, 1409–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Better Information for Better Health. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/tracking/BetterInfoBetterHealth.html (accessed on 7 July 2020).
- Eatman, S.; Strosnider, H.M. CDC’s National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program in Action: Case Studies From State and Local Health Departments. J. Public Health Manag Pract. 2017, 23 (Suppl. 5), S9–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qualters, J.R.; Strosnider, H.M.; Bell, R. Data to action: Using environmental public health tracking to inform decision making. J. Public Health Manag Pract. 2015, 21 (Suppl. 2), S12–S22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Charleston, A.E.; Wall, P.; Kassinger, C.; Edwards, P.O. Implementing the environmental public health tracking network: Accomplishments, challenges, and directions. J. Public Health Manag Pract. 2008, 14, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Available online: https://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/index.html#:~:text=HCUP%20databases%20are%20derived%20from,%2C%20private%20insurance%2C%20uninsured)%2C(under“OverviewofHCUP”) (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Love, D.; Rudolph, B.; Shah, G.H. Lessons learned in using hospital discharge data for state and national public health surveillance: Implications for Centers for Disease Control and prevention tracking program. J. Public Health Manag Pract. 2008, 14, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- NAHDO Partner Agencies. Available online: https://www.nahdo.org/ (accessed on 7 July 2020).
- Sadoughi, F.; Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb, Z.; Ahmadi, M. Strategies for improving the data quality in national hospital discharge data system: A delphi study. Acta Inform. Med. 2013, 21, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huser, V.; Kahn, M.G.; Brown, J.S.; Gouripeddi, R. Methods for examining data quality in healthcare integrated data repositories. Pac. Symp Biocomput. 2018, 23, 628–633. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bray, F.; Parkin, D.M. Evaluation of data quality in the cancer registry: Principles and methods. Part I: Comparability, validity and timeliness. Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 747–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, G.; Bartholomay, P.; Cruz, O.G.; Garcia, L.P. Evaluation of data quality, timeliness and acceptability of the tuberculosis surveillance system in Brazil’s micro-regions. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2017, 22, 3307–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Engstrom, K.; Sill, D.N.; Schauer, S.; Malinowski, M.; Martin, E.; Hayney, M.S. Timeliness of data entry in Wisconsin Immunization Registry by Wisconsin pharmacies. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 2020, 60, 618–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, S.; Grenier, D.; Medaglia, A. The Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program: A framework for the timely data collection on head injury secondary to suspected child maltreatment. Am. J. Prev Med. 2008, 34 (Suppl. 4), S140–S142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hook, E.B. Timely monthly surveillance of birth prevalence rates of congenital malformations and genetic disorders ascertained by registries or other systematic data bases. Teratology 1990, 41, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desai, A.N.; Kraemer, M.U.G.; Bhatia, S.; Cori, A.; Nouvellet, P.; Herringer, M.; Cohn, E.L.; Carrion, M.; Brownstein, J.S.; Madoff, L.C.; et al. Real-time Epidemic Forecasting: Challenges and Opportunities. Health Secur. 2019, 17, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaix, B. Mobile Sensing in Environmental Health and Neighborhood Research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2018, 39, 367–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lawpoolsri, S.; Kaewkungwal, J.; Khamsiriwatchara, A.; Sovann, L.; Sreng, B.; Phommasack, B.; Kitthiphong, V.; Lwin Nyein, S.; Win Myint, N.; Dang Vung, N.; et al. Data quality and timeliness of outbreak reporting system among countries in Greater Mekong subregion: Challenges for international data sharing. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2018, 12, e0006425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klompas, M.; Cocoros, N.M.; Menchaca, J.T.; Erani, D.; Hafer, E.; Herrick, B.; Josephson, M.; Lee, M.; Payne Weiss, M.D.; Zambarano, B.; et al. State and Local Chronic Disease Surveillance Using Electronic Health Record Systems. Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, 1406–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perlman, S.E.; McVeigh, K.H.; Thorpe, L.E.; Jacobson, L.; Greene, C.M.; Gwynn, R.C. Innovations in Population Health Surveillance: Using Electronic Health Records for Chronic Disease Surveillance. Am. J. Public Health 2017, 107, 853–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarabichi, Y.; Goyden, J.; Liu, R.; Lewis, S.; Sudano, J.; Kaelber, D.C. A step closer to nationwide electronic health record-based chronic disease surveillance: Characterizing asthma prevalence and emergency department utilization from 100 million patient records through a novel multisite collaboration. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2020, 27, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Classen, D.; Li, M.; Miller, S.; Ladner, D. An Electronic Health Record-Based Real-Time Analytics Program for Patient Safety Surveillance And Improvement. Health Aff. 2018, 37, 1805–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namulanda, G.; Qualters, J.; Vaidyanathan, A.; Roberts, E.; Richardson, M.; Fraser, A.; McVeigh, K.H.; Patterson, S. Electronic health record case studies to advance environmental public health tracking. J. Biomed. Inform. 2018, 79, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hindin, R.; Buchanan, D.R.; Bosompra, K.; Robinson, F. Data for empowerment! The application of small area analysis in community health education and evaluation. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 1997, 17, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saunders, P.; Campbell, P.; Webster, M.; Thawe, M. Analysis of Small Area Environmental, Socioeconomic and Health Data in Collaboration with Local Communities to Target and Evaluate ‘Triple Win’ Interventions in a Deprived Community in Birmingham UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Werner, A.K.; Strosnider, H.; Kassinger, C.; Shin, M.; Sub-County Data Project, W. Lessons Learned From the Environmental Public Health Tracking Sub-County Data Pilot Project. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2018, 24, E20–E27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hole, D.J.; Lamont, D.W. Problems in the interpretation of small area analysis of epidemiological data: The case of cancer incidence in the West of Scotland. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1992, 46, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Holmes, J.H.; Soualmia, L.F.; Seroussi, B. A 21st Century Embarrassment of Riches: The Balance Between Health Data Access, Usage, and Sharing. Yearb Med. Inform. 2018, 27, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vetterlein, M.W.; Loppenberg, B.; Karabon, P.; Dalela, D.; Jindal, T.; Sood, A.; Chun, F.K.; Trinh, Q.D.; Menon, M.; Abdollah, F. Impact of travel distance to the treatment facility on overall mortality in US patients with prostate cancer. Cancer 2017, 123, 3241–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nalin, M.; Baroni, I.; Faiella, G.; Romano, M.; Matrisciano, F.; Gelenbe, E.; Martinez, D.M.; Dumortier, J.; Natsiavas, P.; Votis, K.; et al. The European cross-border health data exchange roadmap: Case study in the Italian setting. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 94, 103183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State and Territorial Exchange of Vital Events (STEVE). Available online: https://www.naphsis.org/steve (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Hamp, A.D.; Doshi, R.K.; Lum, G.R.; Allston, A. Cross-Jurisdictional Data Exchange Impact on the Estimation of the HIV Population Living in the District of Columbia: Evaluation Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2018, 4, e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shamsipour, M.; Farzadfar, F.; Gohari, K.; Parsaeian, M.; Amini, H.; Rabiei, K.; Hassanvand, M.S.; Navidi, I.; Fotouhi, A.; Naddafi, K.; et al. A framework for exploration and cleaning of environmental data--Tehran air quality data experience. Arch. Iran. Med. 2014, 17, 821–829. [Google Scholar]
- Welch, G.; von Recklinghausen, F.; Taenzer, A.; Savitz, L.; Weiss, L. Data Cleaning in the Evaluation of a Multi-Site Intervention Project. eGEMs 2017, 5, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Category | Characteristic | No. (%) |
---|---|---|
Types of data ** | Inpatient discharge | 26 (100.0) |
Emergency department discharge | 22 (84.6) | |
Outpatient/non-inpatient discharge | 8 (30.8) | |
Observation stay files | 8 (30.8) | |
All-payer claims | 6 (23.1) | |
Data provider | Hospital association | 8 (30.8) |
Other health department, agency, commission, or board | 18 (69.2) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100.0%) | |
Protected health information (PHI) | Record level identifiable data set with PHI | 15 (57.7) |
Record level de-identified data set with PHI removed | 7 (26.9) | |
Aggregated data set (not record level) | 2 (7.7) | |
Other | 2 (7.7) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100%) | |
Spatial resolution of data | Street address level | 8 (30.8) |
Census tract level | 3 (11.5) | |
ZIP code level | 9 (34.6) | |
County level | 1 (3.8) | |
Other (block group, street, community, county, or town level) | 5 (19.2) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100.0%) | |
Necessary elements to identify transfer | Yes, a combination of variables is provided | 16 (61.5) |
Yes, patient ID is provided | 6 (23.1) | |
No, but data provide identifies/flags transfers | 3 (11.5) | |
No, data are too aggregated to identify transfers | 1 (3.8) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100.0%) | |
Who is responsible for removing duplicates? | Data provider | 12 (46.2) |
State program | 9 (34.6) | |
Other | 5 (19.2) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100.0%) | |
Program conduct your own validation? | Yes | 17 (65.4) |
No | 9 (34.6) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100.0%) | |
How does your program correct errors/problems you find with the data (n = 17) | Our program asks the data agency/organization/department to correct and resubmit the data | 9 (52.9) |
Our program corrects the error or corrects/notifies data steward | 5(29.4) | |
All the above | 2 (11.8) | |
Errors are not corrected | 1 (5.9) | |
Sub-total | 17 (100.0%) | |
Any exclusion of data ** | Veterans Affairs | 23 (88.5) |
Tribal | 20 (76.9) | |
Federal facilities | 21 (80.8) | |
Specialty hospitals (e.g., psychiatric, cancer) | 9 (34.6) | |
Clinical access hospitals | 3 (11.5) | |
Other (e.g., prison, hospice, long-term, military hospitals) | 8 (30.8) | |
Sub-total | 26 (100.0%) | |
Purposes of data use for environmental public health tracking ** | To calculate nationally consistent data and measures (NCDMs) and send to CDC national tracking program | 26 (100.0) |
To display non-NCDMs on our program’s state tracking portal | 24 (92.3) | |
To inform public health actions | 24 (92.3) | |
To conduct routine data analyses | 23 (88.5) | |
To create reports | 18 (69.2) | |
Other | 6 (23.1) |
Receiving Border Data? | State | Border States (Year of Data Received in 2019, Data Supplier **) |
---|---|---|
Yes, from all bordering states | Kansas | Missouri (2018, A), Colorado (2018, A), Oklahoma (2018, A) |
Michigan | Ohio (2018, A), Illinois/Indiana (2018, A), Wisconsin (2018, A) | |
New Hampshire | Maine (2018, B), Massachusetts (2016, B), Vermont (2015, B) | |
Yes, from some but not all, bordering states | Minnesota | North Dakota (2017, A), Iowa (2017, A), South Dakota (2017, A) |
Missouri | Arkansas (2017, B), Illinois/Indiana (2017, B), Iowa (2017), Kansas (2017, B) | |
New Mexico | Texas (2017, B) | |
Vermont | New Hampshire (2015, A), Massachusetts (NP, A), New York (2016, A) | |
Washington | Oregon (2016, O) | |
Wisconsin | Minnesota (2018, B), Iowa (2018, B) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Shin, M.; Hawley, C.; Strosnider, H. Common and Unique Barriers to the Exchange of Administrative Healthcare Data in Environmental Public Health Tracking Program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084356
Shin M, Hawley C, Strosnider H. Common and Unique Barriers to the Exchange of Administrative Healthcare Data in Environmental Public Health Tracking Program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(8):4356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084356
Chicago/Turabian StyleShin, Mikyong, Charles Hawley, and Heather Strosnider. 2021. "Common and Unique Barriers to the Exchange of Administrative Healthcare Data in Environmental Public Health Tracking Program" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8: 4356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084356