Connecting healthcare and clinical research: Workflow optimizations through seamless integration of EHR, pseudonymization services and EDC systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the last years, several projects promote the secondary use of routine healthcare data based on electronic health record (EHR) data. In multicenter studies, dedicated pseudonymization services are applied for unified pseudonym handling. Healthcare, clinical research and pseudonymization systems are generally disconnected. Hence, the aim of this research work is to integrate these applications and to evaluate the workflow of clinical research. METHODS: We analyzed and identified technical solutions for legislation compliant automatic pseudonym generation and for the integration into EHR as well as electronic data capture (EDC) systems. The Mainzelliste was used as pseudonymization service, which is available as open source solution and compliant with the data privacy concept in Germany. Subject of the integration was the local EHR and an in-house developed EDC system. A time and motion study was conducted to evaluate the effects on the workflow. RESULTS: Integration of EHR, pseudonymization service and EDC systems is technically feasible and leads to a less fragmented usage of all applications. Generated pseudonyms are obtained from the service hosted at a trusted third party and can now be used in the EDC as well as in the EHR system for direct access and re-identification. The evaluation of 90 registration iterations shows that the time for documentation has been significantly reduced in average by 39.6 s (56.3%) from 71 ± 8 s to 31 ± 5 s per registered study patient. CONCLUSIONS: By incorporating EHR, EDC and pseudonymization systems, it is now feasible to support multicenter studies and registers out of an integrated system landscape within a hospital. Optimizing the workflow of patient registration for clinical research allows reduction of double data entry and transcription errors as well as a seamless transition from clinical routine to research data collection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".