Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 3/2015

01-06-2015

Strategies for Medical Data Extraction and Presentation Part 2: Creating a Customizable Context and User-Specific Patient Reference Database

Author: Bruce Reiner

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges facing healthcare professionals is the ability to directly and efficiently access relevant data from the patient’s healthcare record at the point of care; specific to both the context of the task being performed and the specific needs and preferences of the individual end-user. In radiology practice, the relative inefficiency of imaging data organization and manual workflow requirements serves as an impediment to historical imaging data review. At the same time, clinical data retrieval is even more problematic due to the quality and quantity of data recorded at the time of order entry, along with the relative lack of information system integration. One approach to address these data deficiencies is to create a multi-disciplinary patient referenceable database which consists of high-priority, actionable data within the cumulative patient healthcare record; in which predefined criteria are used to categorize and classify imaging and clinical data in accordance with anatomy, technology, pathology, and time. The population of this referenceable database can be performed through a combination of manual and automated methods, with an additional step of data verification introduced for data quality control. Once created, these referenceable databases can be filtered at the point of care to provide context and user-specific data specific to the task being performed and individual end-user requirements.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fayyad U, Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Smyth P: The KDD process of extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data. Commun ACM 11:27–34, 1996CrossRef Fayyad U, Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Smyth P: The KDD process of extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data. Commun ACM 11:27–34, 1996CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, et al: Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med 160:2741–2747, 2000CrossRefPubMed Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, et al: Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med 160:2741–2747, 2000CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Reiner BI, McKinley M: Innovation economics and medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 3:325–329, 2012CrossRef Reiner BI, McKinley M: Innovation economics and medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 3:325–329, 2012CrossRef
5.
6.
go back to reference Reiner B: Optimizing medical data extraction and presentation: current limitations and deficiencies. J Digit Imaging 2:123–126, 2015 Reiner B: Optimizing medical data extraction and presentation: current limitations and deficiencies. J Digit Imaging 2:123–126, 2015
8.
go back to reference Rosenthal DI, Weilburg JB, Schultz T, et al: Radiology order entry with decision support: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Radiol 3:799–806, 2006CrossRefPubMed Rosenthal DI, Weilburg JB, Schultz T, et al: Radiology order entry with decision support: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Radiol 3:799–806, 2006CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kilbridge PM, Welebob EM, Classen DC: Development of the Leapfrog methodology for evaluating hospital implemented inpatient computerized physician order entry systems. Qual Saf Health Care 15:81–84, 2006CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed Kilbridge PM, Welebob EM, Classen DC: Development of the Leapfrog methodology for evaluating hospital implemented inpatient computerized physician order entry systems. Qual Saf Health Care 15:81–84, 2006CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
10.
go back to reference Reiner BI: Medical imaging data reconciliation. Part 2: clinical order entry/imaging report data reconciliation. J Am Coll Radiol 10:720–724, 2011CrossRef Reiner BI: Medical imaging data reconciliation. Part 2: clinical order entry/imaging report data reconciliation. J Am Coll Radiol 10:720–724, 2011CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z, et al: Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR 173:1169–1172, 1999CrossRefPubMed Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z, et al: Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR 173:1169–1172, 1999CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Siegel EL, Reiner BI: Filmless radiology at the Baltimore VA Medical Center: a nine-year retrospective. Comput Med Imaging Graph 27:101–109, 2003CrossRefPubMed Siegel EL, Reiner BI: Filmless radiology at the Baltimore VA Medical Center: a nine-year retrospective. Comput Med Imaging Graph 27:101–109, 2003CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Levin DC, Rao VM: Outsourcing to teleradiology companies: bad for radiology, bad for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 8:104–108, 2011CrossRefPubMed Levin DC, Rao VM: Outsourcing to teleradiology companies: bad for radiology, bad for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 8:104–108, 2011CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Strategies for Medical Data Extraction and Presentation Part 2: Creating a Customizable Context and User-Specific Patient Reference Database
Author
Bruce Reiner
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9794-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Journal of Digital Imaging 3/2015 Go to the issue