Appl Clin Inform
DOI: 10.1055/a-2401-3688
Research Article

Coverage of physical therapy assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model common data model

Margaret A French
1   Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN14434)
,
Paul Hartman
1   Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN14434)
,
Heather A Hayes
1   Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN14434)
,
Leah Ling
1   Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN14434)
,
John Magel
1   Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN14434)
,
Anne Thackeray
1   Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, United States (Ringgold ID: RIN14434)
› Author Affiliations

Background: High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across healthcare systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Model (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent that physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear. Objective: Examine the extent that physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM. Methods: After identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. We quantified agreement within the reviewer team by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which we examined agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment. Results: Of the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2±1.3 and 4.3±4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively). Conclusions: The OMOP CDM includes some assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions, but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.



Publication History

Received: 15 May 2024

Accepted after revision: 21 August 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
22 August 2024

© . Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany