Evaluating and Enhancing the Fitness-for-Purpose of Electronic Health Record Data: Qualitative Study on Current Practices and Pathway to an Automated Approach Within the Medical Informatics for Research and Care in University Medicine Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leveraging electronic health record (EHR) data for clinical or research purposes heavily depends on data fitness. However, there is a lack of standardized frameworks to evaluate EHR data suitability, leading to inconsistent quality in data use projects (DUPs). This research focuses on the Medical Informatics for Research and Care in University Medicine (MIRACUM) Data Integration Centers (DICs) and examines empirical practices on assessing and automating the fitness-for-purpose of clinical data in German DIC settings. OBJECTIVE: The study aims (1) to capture and discuss how MIRACUM DICs evaluate and enhance the fitness-for-purpose of observational health care data and examine the alignment with existing recommendations and (2) to identify the requirements for designing and implementing a computer-assisted solution to evaluate EHR data fitness within MIRACUM DICs. METHODS: A qualitative approach was followed using an open-ended survey across DICs of 10 German university hospitals affiliated with MIRACUM. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis following an inductive qualitative method. RESULTS: All 10 MIRACUM DICs participated, with 17 participants revealing various approaches to assessing data fitness, including the 4-eyes principle and data consistency checks such as cross-system data value comparison. Common practices included a DUP-related feedback loop on data fitness and using self-designed dashboards for monitoring. Most experts had a computer science background and a master's degree, suggesting strong technological proficiency but potentially lacking clinical or statistical expertise. Nine key requirements for a computer-assisted solution were identified, including flexibility, understandability, extendibility, and practicability. Participants used heterogeneous data repositories for evaluating data quality criteria and practical strategies to communicate with research and clinical teams. CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies gaps between current practices in MIRACUM DICs and existing recommendations, offering insights into the complexities of assessing and reporting clinical data fitness. Additionally, a tripartite modular framework for fitness-for-purpose assessment was introduced to streamline the forthcoming implementation. It provides valuable input for developing and integrating an automated solution across multiple locations. This may include statistical comparisons to advanced machine learning algorithms for operationalizing frameworks such as the 3×3 data quality assessment framework. These findings provide foundational evidence for future design and implementation studies to enhance data quality assessments for specific DUPs in observational health care settings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.108 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".