Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(05): 1003-1012
DOI: 10.1055/a-2401-3688
Research Article

Coverage of Physical Therapy Assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model

Margaret A. French
1   Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Paul Hartman
1   Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Heather A. Hayes
1   Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Leah Ling
1   Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
John Magel
1   Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Anne Thackeray
1   Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background High-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across health care systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent to which physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.

Objective This study aimed to examine the extent to which 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. Agreement within the reviewer team was assessed 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 agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment were assessed.

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).

Conclusion The OMOP CDM includes some physical therapy 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.

Keywords

OMOP Common Data Model - physical therapy - function - standards

Protection of Human Subjects

No human subjects were involved in this project.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 15 May 2024

Accepted: 21 August 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
22 August 2024

Article published online:
27 November 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018; 319 (10) 1024-1039
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gunja MZ, Gumas ED, Williams RD. II. . U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes. The Commonwealth Fund; 2023.
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Jewell DV, Moore JD, Goldstein MS. Delivering the physical therapy value proposition: a call to action. Phys Ther 2013; 93 (01) 104-114
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Porter ME. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (26) 2477-2481
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Teisberg E, Wallace S, O'Hara S. Defining and implementing value-based health care: a strategic framework. Acad Med 2020; 95 (05) 682-685
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Baumhauer JF, Bozic KJ. Value-based healthcare: patient-reported outcomes in clinical decision making. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (06) 1375-1378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Yoo S, Yoon E, Boo D. et al. Transforming thyroid cancer diagnosis and staging information from unstructured reports to the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership Common Data Model. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (03) 521-531
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Weeks J, Pardee R. Learning to share health care data: a brief timeline of influential common data models and distributed health data networks in U.S. Health Care Research. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2019; 7 (01) 4
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Voss EA, Makadia R, Matcho A. et al. Feasibility and utility of applications of the common data model to multiple, disparate observational health databases. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (03) 553-564
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Garza M, Del Fiol G, Tenenbaum J, Walden A, Zozus MN. Evaluating common data models for use with a longitudinal community registry. J Biomed Inform 2016; 64: 333-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Kent S, Burn E, Dawoud D. et al. Common problems, common data model solutions: evidence generation for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics 2021; 39 (03) 275-285
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hripcsak G, Duke JD, Shah NH. et al. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI): opportunities for observational researchers. Stud Health Technol Inform 2015; 216: 574-578
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. The Book of OHDSI. Accessed February 23, 2024 at: https://ohdsi.github.io/TheBookOfOhdsi/
    PubMed
  • 14 Klann JG, Joss MAH, Embree K, Murphy SN. Data model harmonization for the All Of Us Research Program: transforming i2b2 data into the OMOP common data model. PLoS ONE 2019; 14 (02) e0212463
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Cho S, Sin M, Tsapepas D. et al. Content coverage evaluation of the OMOP vocabulary on the transplant domain focusing on concepts relevant for kidney transplant outcomes analysis. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (04) 650-658
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Sathappan SMK, Jeon YS, Dang TK. et al. Transformation of electronic health records and questionnaire data to OMOP CDM: a feasibility study using SG_T2DM Dataset. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (04) 757-767
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Reinecke I, Zoch M, Reich C, Sedlmayr M, Bathelt F. The usage of OHDSI OMOP - a scoping review. Stud Health Technol Inform 2021; 283: 95-103
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lamer A, Depas N, Doutreligne M. et al. Transforming French electronic health records into the Observational Medical Outcome Partnership's Common Data Model: a feasibility study. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (01) 13-22
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Maier C, Lang L, Storf H. et al. Towards implementation of OMOP in a German University Hospital Consortium. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 54-61
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Cai CX, Halfpenny W, Boland MV. et al. Advancing toward a common data model in ophthalmology: gap analysis of general eye examination concepts to Standard Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) concepts. Ophthalmol Sci 2023; 3 (04) 100391
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Lamer A, Abou-Arab O, Bourgeois A. et al. Transforming anesthesia data into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model: development and usability study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (10) e29259
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A. et al. US Health Care Spending by Payer and Health Condition, 1996-2016. JAMA 2020; 323 (09) 863-884
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Feigin VL, Forouzanfar MH, Krishnamurthi R. et al; Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2010 (GBD 2010) and the GBD Stroke Experts Group. Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990-2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2014; 383 (9913) 245-254
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 French MA, Hartman P, Hayes HA. et al. Examination of the coverage of functional assessments in the OMOP common data model. medRxiv 2024; ; 2024.2005.2003.24306841. Doi:
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Potter K, Cohen ET, Allen DD. et al. Outcome measures for individuals with multiple sclerosis: recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Neurology Section Task Force. Phys Ther 2014; 94 (05) 593-608
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; Parkinson Evidence Database to Guide Effectiveness. 2018. . Accessed May 1, 2024 at: https://www.neuropt.org/practice-resources/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations/parkinson-disease
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kahn JH, Tappan R, Newman CP. et al. Outcome measure recommendations from the Spinal Cord Injury EDGE Task Force. Phys Ther 2016; 96 (11) 1832-1842
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Sullivan JE, Crowner BE, Kluding PM. et al. Outcome measures for individuals with stroke: process and recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association neurology section task force. Phys Ther 2013; 93 (10) 1383-1396
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 McCulloch KL, de Joya AL, Hays K. et al. Outcome measures for persons with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: recommendations from the American Physical Therapy Association Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy TBI EDGE Task Force. J Neurol Phys Ther 2016; 40 (04) 269-280
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; Vestibular EDGE. 2018. Accessed May 1, 2024 at: https://www.neuropt.org/practice-resources/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations/vestibular-disorders
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Martin RL, Chimenti R, Cuddeford T. et al. Achilles pain, stiffness, and muscle power deficits: Midportion Achilles Tendinopathy Revision 2018. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018; 48 (05) A1-A38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Martin RL, Davenport TE, Fraser JJ. et al. Ankle stability and movement coordination impairments: Lateral Ankle Ligament Sprains Revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021; 51 (04) CPG1-CPG80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Erickson M, Lawrence M, Jansen CWS, Coker D, Amadio P, Cleary C. Hand pain and sensory deficits: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019; 49 (05) CPG1-CPG85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Koc Jr TA, Bise CG, Neville C, Carreira D, Martin RL, McDonough CM. Heel pain - plantar fasciitis: Revision 2023. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023; 53 (12) CPG1-CPG39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Arundale AJH, Bizzini M, Dix C. et al. Exercise-based knee and anterior cruciate ligament injury prevention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023; 53 (01) CPG1-CPG34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Logerstedt DS, Snyder-Mackler L, Ritter RC, Axe MJ, Godges JJ. Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapist Association. Knee stability and movement coordination impairments: knee ligament sprain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010; 40 (04) A1-A37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Logerstedt DS, Scalzitti DA, Bennell KL. et al. Knee pain and mobility impairments: Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Lesions Revision 2018. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018; 48 (02) A1-A50
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Willy RW, Hoglund LT, Barton CJ. et al. Patellofemoral pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019; 49 (09) CPG1-CPG95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Martin RL, Cibulka MT, Bolgla LA. et al. Hamstring strain injury in athletes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022; 52 (03) CPG1-CPG44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 McDonough CM, Harris-Hayes M, Kristensen MT. et al. Physical therapy management of older adults with hip fracture. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021; 51 (02) CPG1-CPG81
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Cibulka MT, Bloom NJ, Enseki KR, Macdonald CW, Woehrle J, McDonough CM. Hip pain and mobility deficits-hip osteoarthritis: Revision 2017. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017; 47 (06) A1-A37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Enseki KR, Bloom NJ, Harris-Hayes M. et al. Hip pain and movement dysfunction associated with nonarthritic hip joint pain: a revision. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023; 53 (07) CPG1-CPG70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Lucado AM, Day JM, Vincent JI. et al. Lateral elbow pain and muscle function impairments. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022; 52 (12) CPG1-CPG111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen L. et al; Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2012; 42 (04) A1-A57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 George SZ, Fritz JM, Silfies SP. et al. Interventions for the management of acute and chronic low back pain: Revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021; 51 (11) CPG1-CPG60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Quatman-Yates CC, Hunter-Giordano A, Shimamura KK. et al. Physical therapy evaluation and treatment after concussion/mild traumatic brain injury. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020; 50 (04) CPG1-CPG73
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Blanpied PR, Gross AR, Elliott JM. et al. Neck pain: Revision 2017. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017; 47 (07) A1-A83
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Daley D, Payne LP, Galper J. et al. Clinical guidance to optimize work participation after injury or illness: the role of physical therapists. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021; 51 (08) CPG1-CPG102
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Clinton S, Newell A, Downey P. et al. Pelvic girdle pain in the antepartum population: Physical Therapy Clinical Practice Guidelines Linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health From the Section on Women's Health and the Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. J Womens Health Phys Therap 2017; 41: 102-125
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Kelley MJ, Shaffer MA, Kuhn JE. et al. Shoulder pain and mobility deficits: adhesive capsulitis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013; 43 (05) A1-A31
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 OHDSI Usagi. USAGI. Accessed February 23, 2024 at: https://ohdsi.github.io/Usagi/
    PubMed
  • 52 R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2022
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 53 McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22 (03) 276-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Dettori JR, Norvell DC. Kappa and beyond: is there agreement?. Global Spine J 2020; 10 (04) 499-501
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Gwet KL. Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2008; 61 (Pt 1): 29-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43 (06) 551-558
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1990; 43 (06) 543-549
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005; 37 (05) 360-363
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Chen P, Lin KC, Liing RJ, Wu CY, Chen CL, Chang KC. Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res 2016; 25 (06) 1585-1596
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39 (11) 1537-1544
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res 1993; 2 (03) 169-180
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Fritz S, Lusardi M. White paper: “walking speed: the sixth vital sign”. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2009; 32 (02) 46-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Foreman KB, Addison O, Kim HS, Dibble LE. Testing balance and fall risk in persons with Parkinson disease, an argument for ecologically valid testing. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011; 17 (03) 166-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Hsu HW, Wu HC, Hsieh CL. Psychometric comparisons of 3 functional ambulation measures for patients with stroke. Stroke 2010; 41 (09) 2021-2025
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Marchetti GF, Lin CC, Alghadir A, Whitney SL. Responsiveness and minimal detectable change of the dynamic gait index and functional gait index in persons with balance and vestibular disorders. J Neurol Phys Ther 2014; 38 (02) 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Moore JL, Potter K, Blankshain K, Kaplan SL, OʼDwyer LC, Sullivan JE. A core set of outcome measures for adults with neurologic conditions undergoing rehabilitation: a clinical practice guideline. J Neurol Phys Ther 2018; 42 (03) 174-220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Beninato M, Fernandes A, Plummer LS. Minimal clinically important difference of the functional gait assessment in older adults. Phys Ther 2014; 94 (11) 1594-1603
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Wrisley DM, Kumar NA. Functional gait assessment: concurrent, discriminative, and predictive validity in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther 2010; 90 (05) 761-773
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Simonds AH, Abraham K, Spitznagle T. Clinical practice guidelines for pelvic girdle pain in the postpartum population. J Womens Pelvic Health Phys Ther 2022; 46: E1-E38
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Baez SE, Hoch MC, Hoch JM. Psychological factors are associated with return to pre-injury levels of sport and physical activity after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (02) 495-501
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Burgess R, Mansell G, Bishop A, Lewis M, Hill J. Predictors of functional outcome in musculoskeletal healthcare: an umbrella review. Eur J Pain 2020; 24 (01) 51-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Philofsky M, Olakpe U. Implementing and adopting a customized OMOP Common Data Model. Paper presented at: OHDSI Global Symposium. Virtual; 2021
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Zhuk O, Klebanov G, Reich C. et al. Source vocabulary mapping, typical pitfalls, solutions and quality assurance. OHDSI Symposium. Virtual; 2020
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 GitHub. OHDSI Vocabulary-v5.0. 2024
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 75 OHDSI. OHDSI Forums.
  • 76 Choi S, Joo HJ, Kim Y, Kim JH, Seok J. Conversion of automated 12-lead electrocardiogram interpretations to OMOP CDM vocabulary. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (04) 880-890
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar