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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fayyad U, Piatetsky-Shapiro G, Smyth P: The KDD process of extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data. Commun ACM 11:27–34, 1996
Cios KJ, Moore GW: Uniqueness of medical data mining. Artif Intell Med 26:1–24, 2002
Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, et al: Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med 160:2741–2747, 2000
Reiner BI, McKinley M: Innovation economics and medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 3:325–329, 2012
Reiner B: One size (doesn’t) fit all. J Am Coll Radiol 4:567–570, 2008
Reiner B: Optimizing medical data extraction and presentation: current limitations and deficiencies. J Digit Imaging 2:123–126, 2015
Berger RG, Kichak JP: Computerized physician order entry: helpful or harmful? J Am Med Inform Assoc 11:100–103, 2004
Rosenthal DI, Weilburg JB, Schultz T, et al: Radiology order entry with decision support: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Radiol 3:799–806, 2006
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, 2006
Reiner BI: Medical imaging data reconciliation. Part 2: clinical order entry/imaging report data reconciliation. J Am Coll Radiol 10:720–724, 2011
Reiner B, Siegel E, Protopapas Z, et al: Impact of filmless radiology on the frequency of clinician consultations with radiologists. AJR 173:1169–1172, 1999
Siegel EL, Reiner BI: Filmless radiology at the Baltimore VA Medical Center: a nine-year retrospective. Comput Med Imaging Graph 27:101–109, 2003
Levin DC, Rao VM: Outsourcing to teleradiology companies: bad for radiology, bad for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 8:104–108, 2011
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reiner, B. Strategies for Medical Data Extraction and Presentation Part 2: Creating a Customizable Context and User-Specific Patient Reference Database. J Digit Imaging 28, 249–255 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9794-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9794-4