Advertisement

Health Information Technology Considerations of Medical and Dental Data Integration

  • Miguel H. Torres-UrquidyEmail author
  • Valerie Powell
  • Shin-Mey Rose Yin Geist
  • Sushma Mishra
  • Monica Chaudhari
  • Mureen Allen
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

Electronic integration of dental and medical care can be accomplished by determining: (1) clinical, epidemiological, and financial needs; (2) interlocking components and other available technologies; (3) potential adaptations and/or barriers that can play a role in integration; and, (4) establishing and implementing a plan that leads to integrated activities. We review the conditions that can benefit from integrated approaches, the technologies currently being used in clinical care, and also supportive factors to integration.

Keywords

Communication Decision support Health information technology Patient matching Oral medicine Privacy Security User-centered design 

Notes

Disclaimer

The views presented in this chapter are solely of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Government, Department of Health and Human Services and/or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

Physicians’ Dental Data Needs and Oral Healthcare Providers’ Medical Data Needs: The Clinical Rationale

  1. Leikauf J, Federman AD. Comparisons of self-reported and chart-identified chronic diseases in inner-city seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(7):1219–25. Epub 2009 May 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Pakhomov SV, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, Roger VL. Agreement between patient-reported symptoms and their documentation in the medical record. Am J Manag Care. 2008;14(8):530–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Standardized/Structured Messages Facilitate Efficient Information Sharing and Benefit Patient Care

  1. ACC/AHA. Performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on performance measures (writing committee to develop performance measures for ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction). Circulation. 2008;118:2596–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2011. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(Suppl 1):S11–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baddour Larry M, Bettmann Michael A, Bolger Ann F, et al. Nonvalvular cardiovascular device-related infections AHA scientific statement—2003. Circulation. 2003;108:2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddour Larry M, Epstein Andrew E, Erickson Christopher C, et al. Update on cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections and their management a scientific statement from the American Heart Association 2010, endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2010;121:458–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease): developed in collaboration with the society of cardiovascular anesthesiologists: endorsed by the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions and the society of thoracic surgeons. Circulation. 2006;114(5):e84–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dajani AS, Taubert KA, Wilson W, et al. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis. Recommendations by the American Heart Association. Circulation. 1997;96(1):358–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Douketis JD, Berger PB, Dunn AS, et al. The perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: American college of chest physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition). Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):299S–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckardt KU, Berns JS, Rocco MV, Kasiske BL. Definition and classification of CKD: the debate should be about patient prognosis—a position statement from KDOQI and KDIGO. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;53(6):915–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Field MJ, Lohr KN, editors. Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program, institute of medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990. p. 38.Google Scholar
  10. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (writing committee to revise the 2002 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery) developed in collaboration with the American society of echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007a;50(17):e159–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geist SM, Geist JR. Improvement in medical consultation responses with a structured request form. J Dent Educ. 2008a;72(5):553–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Grines CL, Bonow RO, Casey DE Jr, et al. Prevention of premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery stents: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions, American College of Surgeons, and American Dental Association, with representation from the American College of Physicians. Circulation. 2007;115(6):813–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39:S1–246.Google Scholar
  14. Lenfant C, Chobanian AV, Jones DW, et al. Seventh report of the joint national committee on the prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure (JNC 7): resetting the hypertension sails. Hypertension. 2003;41(6):1178–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lessard E, Glick M, Ahmed S, Saric M. The patient with a heart murmur: evaluation, assessment and dental considerations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:347–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levey AS, Eckardt KU, Tsukamoto Y, et al. Definition and classification of chronic kidney disease: a position statement from kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2005;67:2089–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levey AS, de Jong PE, Coresh J, et al. The definition, classification and prognosis of chronic kidney disease: a KDIGO controversies conference report. Kidney Int. 2011;80(1):17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moser M. Historical perspectives on the management of hypertension. J Clin Hypertens. 2006;8(8 Suppl 2):15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. National Cancer Institute. Oral complications of chemotherapy and head/neck radiation PDQ. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2010. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/oralcomplications/HealthProfessional. Accessed 10 June 2018Google Scholar
  20. National Cancer Institute. PDQ® oral complications of chemotherapy and head/neck radiation. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2011. http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/oralcomplications/HealthProfessional. Accessed 8 May 2011Google Scholar
  21. O’Malley AS, Reschovsky JD. Referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2011a;171(1):56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peterson P, Hayes TE, Arkin CF, et al. The preoperative bleeding time test lacks clinical benefit: College of American Pathologists’ and American Society of Clinical Pathologists’ position article. Arch Surg. 1998;133(2):134–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1330–7. Epub 2011 Feb 14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007a;116(15):1736–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Designing and Implementing Efficient Structured Communication Among a Patient’s Medical and Dental Providers

  1. Chen AH, Yee HF Jr. Improving primary care-specialty care communication: lessons from San Francisco’s safety net: comment on “referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians”. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(1):65–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fleisher LA, Beckman JA, Brown KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (writing committee to revise the 2002 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery) developed in collaboration with the American society of echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007b;50(17):e159–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geist SM, Geist JR. Improvement in medical consultation responses with a structured request form. J Dent Educ. 2008b;72(5):553–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. O’Malley AS, Reschovsky JD. Referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2011b;171(1):56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Stoves J, Connolly J, Cheung CK, et al. Electronic consultation as an alternative to hospital referral for patients with chronic kidney disease: a novel application for networked electronic health records to improve the accessibility and efficiency of healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):e54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M, et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007b;116(15):1736–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Towards an Integrated Electronic Health (EHR) System: Compliance, Security and Privacy Concerns

  1. Austin A, Smith B, Williams L. Towards improved security criteria for certification of electronic health record systems. In Proceedings of SEHC’10, Cape Town; 3–4 May 2010.
  2. Baumer DL, Earp JB, Payton FC. Privacy of medical records: IT implications of HIPAA. ACM Comput Soc. 2000;30(4):40–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benaloh J, Chase M, Horvitz E, Lauter K. Patient controlled encryption: ensuring privacy of electronic medical records. CCSW’09. Chicago, 13 Nov 2009.Google Scholar
  4. Brown B. Improving the privacy and security of personal health records. J Health Care Compliance. 2009;11(2):39–40. 68Google Scholar
  5. Cannoy S, Salam A. A framework for healthcare information assurance policy and compliance. Commun ACM. 2010;53(3):126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi Y, Caption K, Krause J, Streeper M. Challenges associated with privacy in health care industry: implementation of HIPAA and the security rules. J Med Syst. 2006;30(1):57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dimitropoulos L, Rizk S. A state-based approach to privacy and security for interoperable health information exchange. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):428–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldschmidt PG. HIT and MIS: implications of health information technology and medical information systems. Commun ACM. 2005;48(10):69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groen P, Powell VJH. Electronic dental records (EDR): ‘open source’ and commercial-off-the shelf (COTS) solutions. Virtual Medical Worlds. 2010. http://www.hoise.com/vmw/10/articles/vmw/LV-VM-08-10-5.html. 23 Aug 2010.
  10. Huston T. Security issues for implementation of e-medical records. Commun ACM. 2001;44(9)  https://doi.org/10.1145/383694.383712.
  11. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, et al. Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1628–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kurtz G. EMR confidentiality and information security. J Health Inf Manag. 2003;17(3):41–8.Google Scholar
  13. Liu V, May L, Caelli W, Croll P. A sustainable approach to security and privacy in health information systems. In Proceedings of 18th Australasian conference on information systems security & privacy in health IS, Toowoomba, 5–7 Dec 2007.
  14. Mishra S, Chin AG. Assessing the impact of governmental regulations on the IT industry: a neoinstitutional theory perspective. In Subramanian R, editor. Computer security privacy politics. 2008:36–53.Google Scholar
  15. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Health IT dashboard. 2018. https://dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/quickstats.php. Accessed 16 June 2018.
  16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nationwide privacy and security framework for electronic exchange of individually identified health information 2008. 2011. www.hhs.gov/healthit/documents/NationwidePS_Framework.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2011.
  17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HITECH Act enforcement interim final rule. 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/enforcementrule/hitechenforcementifr.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2011.

Matching Patients to Achieve Unique Patient Identification

  1. Blakely T, Salmond C. Probabilistic record linkage and a method to calculate the positive predictive value. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(6):1246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gill L, Goldacre M, Simmons H, et al. Computerised linking of medical records: methodological guidelines. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993;47(4):316–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Liu S. Development of record linkage of hospital discharge data for the study of neonatal readmission. Chronic Dis Can. 1999;20(2):77–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Roos LL, Wajda A. Record linkage strategies. Part I: Estimating information and evaluating approaches. Methods Inf Med. 1991;30(2):117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Theis MK, et al. Case study of linking dental and medical healthcare records. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(2):e51–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Improved Electronic Healthcare Technologies (EHT) Through the Harmonization of Application Design and Clinician Needs

  1. Allen M, Currie LM, Graham M, et al. The classification of clinicians’ information needs while using a clinical information system. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:26–30.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K (2009) Electronic health record usability: interface design considerations. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0091-2-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
  3. Covell DG, Uman GC, Manning PR. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985;103(4):596–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Horsky J, Kuperman GJ, Patel VL (2005) Comprehensive analysis of a medication dosing error related to CPOE. J Am Med Inform Assoc; 12(4):377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Electronic Decision Support in Medicine and Dentistry

  1. Bader JD, Shugars DA. What do we know about how dentists make caries-related treatment decisions? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997a;25(1):97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bader JD, Shugars DA. A case for diagnoses. J Am Coll Dent. 1997b;64(3):44–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bankowitz RA, et al. A computer-assisted medical diagnostic consultation service. Implementation and prospective evaluation of a prototype. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110(10):824–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crespo KE, Torres JE, Recio ME. Reasoning process characteristics in the diagnostic skills of beginner, competent, and expert dentists. J Dent Educ. 2004;68(12):1235–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes. A systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ledley RS, Lusted LB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis; symbolic logic, probability, and value theory aid our understanding of how physicians reason. Science. 1959;130(3366):9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Melkos AB. Advances in digital technology and orthodontics: a reference to the invisalign method. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11(5):PI39–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Mendonca EA. Clinical decision support systems: perspectives in dentistry. J Dent Educ. 2004;68(6):589–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mickan S, Atherton H, Roberts NW, et al. Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:56.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Mickan S, Tilson JK, Atherton H, et al. Evidence of effectiveness of health care professionals using handheld computers: a scoping review of systematic reviews. Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10):e212.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Okuda T, Yoshida T, Hotta M (1997) A dental condition prediction system with artificial neural networks and fuzzy inference systems. Orlando: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oosterkamp BC, Wafae A, Schols JG, et al. Effectiveness of a clinical guideline to improve dental health among orthodontically treated patients: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):201.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1325-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Rudin JL. DART (diagnostic Aid and resource tool): a computerized clinical decision support system for oral pathology. Compendium. 1994;15(11):1316. 1318, 1320 passimPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sciubba JJ. Improving detection of precancerous and cancerous oral lesions. Computer-assisted analysis of the oral brush biopsy. U.S. Collaborative OralCDx Study Group. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130(10):1445–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shortliffe EH. Medical informatics: computer applications in health care and biomedicine. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2001. p. xxvii, p. 854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sox HC. Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworths; 1988. p. 406.Google Scholar
  17. Varghese J, Kleine M, Gessner SI, et al. Effects of computerized decision support system implementations on patient outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(5):593–602.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Walker GF. Cephalometrics and the computer. J Dent Res. 1967;46(6):1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Warner HR, Toronto AF, Veasy LG. Experience with Baye’s theorem for computer diagnosis of congenital heart disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964;115:558–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weed LL. Knowledge coupling: new premises and new tools for medical care and education. New York: Springer; 1991. p. xxv, p. 362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. White SC. Computer-aided differential diagnosis of oral radiographic lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1989;18(2):53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. White SC. Decision-support systems in dentistry. J Dent Educ. 1996;60(1):47–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel H. Torres-Urquidy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valerie Powell
    • 2
  • Shin-Mey Rose Yin Geist
    • 3
  • Sushma Mishra
    • 2
  • Monica Chaudhari
    • 4
  • Mureen Allen
    • 5
  1. 1.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Robert Morris UniversityPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.University of Detroit MercyDetroitUSA
  4. 4.Cancer Research and BiostatisticiansSeattleUSA
  5. 5.United Health GroupNew York CityUSA

Personalised recommendations