Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar 7;4(1):1163.
doi: 10.13063/2327-9214.1163. eCollection 2016.

Consensus Statement on Electronic Health Predictive Analytics: A Guiding Framework to Address Challenges

Affiliations

Consensus Statement on Electronic Health Predictive Analytics: A Guiding Framework to Address Challenges

Ruben Amarasingham et al. EGEMS (Wash DC). .

Abstract

Context: The recent explosion in available electronic health record (EHR) data is motivating a rapid expansion of electronic health care predictive analytic (e-HPA) applications, defined as the use of electronic algorithms that forecast clinical events in real time with the intent to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. There is an urgent need for a systematic framework to guide the development and application of e-HPA to ensure that the field develops in a scientifically sound, ethical, and efficient manner.

Objectives: Building upon earlier frameworks of model development and utilization, we identify the emerging opportunities and challenges of e-HPA, propose a framework that enables us to realize these opportunities, address these challenges, and motivate e-HPA stakeholders to both adopt and continuously refine the framework as the applications of e-HPA emerge.

Methods: To achieve these objectives, 17 experts with diverse expertise including methodology, ethics, legal, regulation, and health care delivery systems were assembled to identify emerging opportunities and challenges of e-HPA and to propose a framework to guide the development and application of e-HPA.

Findings: The framework proposed by the panel includes three key domains where e-HPA differs qualitatively from earlier generations of models and algorithms (Data Barriers, Transparency, and ETHICS) and areas where current frameworks are insufficient to address the emerging opportunities and challenges of e-HPA (Regulation and Certification; and Education and Training). The following list of recommendations summarizes the key points of the framework: Data Barriers: Establish mechanisms within the scientific community to support data sharing for predictive model development and testing.Transparency: Set standards around e-HPA validation based on principles of scientific transparency and reproducibility.

Ethics: Develop both individual-centered and society-centered risk-benefit approaches to evaluate e-HPA.Regulation and Certification: Construct a self-regulation and certification framework within e-HPA.Education and Training: Make significant changes to medical, nursing, and paraprofessional curricula by including training for understanding, evaluating, and utilizing predictive models.

Keywords: Clinical decision support systems; Ethics; Health Information Technology; Informatics; big data; electronic predictive analytics; predictive models.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Guiding Framework Transparency: Why should I trust my care to a computer model? Regulation & Certification: What’s the right balance between regulation and certification on the one hand, and innovation on the other? Data Barriers: Can modeling techniques keep pace with the size and complexity of data? Ethics & Privacy: What should be the right framework to think through some of the ethics issues arising from e-HPA? Education & Training: Can doctors keep pace with e-HPA?

References

    1. Knaus WA, et al. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818–29. - PubMed
    1. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, et al. Conceptualizing a model: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Value Health. 2012;15:804–11. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, et al. Modeling good research practices - overview: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health. 2012;15:796–803. - PubMed
    1. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, et al. Model transparency and validation: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-4. Value Health. 2012;15:843–50. - PubMed
    1. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick E, et al. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-6. Value Health. 2012;15:835–42. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources