Abstract
Background Disease surveillance is a critical function of public health, provides essential information about disease burden, clinical and epidemiologic parameters of disease, and is an important element to effective and timely case and contact tracing. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the essential role these functions have to preserve public health. Syndromic surveillance, electronic laboratory reporting in the meaningful use program, and the growth of the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) have created linkages between hospitals, commercial labs, and public health that can collect and organize data, often through EHR and order workflows, to improve the timeliness and completeness of reporting. In theory, the standard data formats and exchange methods provided by meaningful use should enable rapid healthcare data exchange in the setting of disruptive healthcare events like a pandemic. In reality, access to data remains challenging, and even if available, often lack conformity to regulated standards.
Objective We sought to use regulated interoperability standards already in production to generate regional bed capacity awareness, enhance the capture of epidemiological risk factors and clinical variables among COVID-19 tested patients, and reduce the administrative burden of reporting for stakeholders in a manner that could be replicated by other public health agencies.
Methods Following a public health order mandating data submission, we developed technical infrastructure to combine multiple data feeds from electronic health record systems. We measured the completeness of each feed, and the match rate between feeds.
Results A cloud-based environment was created that received data from electronic lab reporting, consolidated clinical data architecture, and bed capacity data feeds from sites. Data governance was planned from the project beginning to aid in consensus and principles for data use. 88,906 total persons from CCDA data among 14 facilities, and 408,741 persons from ELR records among 88 facilities, were submitted. Fields routinely absent from ELR feeds included travel histories, clinical symptoms, and comorbidities. CCDA data provided an improvement in the quality of data available for surveillance and was highly complete with <5% for all records types with the exception of patient cell phone. 90.1% of records could be matched between CCDA and ELR feeds.
Conclusions We describe the development of a city-wide public health data hub for the surveillance of COVID-19 infection. We were able to assess the completeness of existing ELR feeds, augment these feeds with CCDA documents, establish secure transfer methods for data exchange, develop cloud-based architecture to enable secure data storage and analytics, and produced meaningful dashboards for the monitoring of capacity and disease burden. We see this public health and clinical data registry as an informative example of the power of common standards across electronic records, and a potential template for future extension of the use of standards to improve public health surveillance.
Introduction
Since the emergence of SARS CoV-2 from Wuhan, China (1), a global pandemic has been declared(2) and widespread, sustained transmission has been observed across the United States. It has at the time of this writing infected 10.9 million and caused over 520,000 deaths worldwide, and over 2.7 million cases and over 120,000 deaths in the United States, with recent increased incidence rates in states in the Southern and Southwestern U.S.
COVID-19 is a reportable disease in Illinois, and both the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) and Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH) mandated the reporting of all patents tested for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Disease surveillance is a critical function of public health, and provides essential information about disease burden, clinical and epidemiologic parameters of disease, and is an important element to effective and timely case and contact tracing. In addition to individual and aggregate level patient data, this pandemic has required careful monitoring of healthcare capacity and utilization to ensure clinical care needs be met.
Support for the public health functions of the surveillance and epidemiology of disease has been embedded in key national informatics initiatives for nearly two decades. These efforts have included syndromic surveillance(3), electronic laboratory reporting(4) in the meaningful use program(5), and the growth of the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)(6). These programs have created linkages between hospitals, commercial labs, and public health that can collect and organize data, often through EHR and order workflows, to improve the timeliness and completeness of reporting.
In theory, the standard data formats and exchange methods provided by meaningful use should enable rapid healthcare data exchange in the setting of disruptive healthcare events like a pandemic. In reality, access to data remains challenging, and even if available, often lack conformity to regulated standards(7). The current COVID-19 pandemic has revealed gaps in data liquidity and the resultant difficulty in gathering information quickly(8).
In the early phase of the pandemic, CDPH and health systems aimed to address two major challenges first, the ability to efficiently submit necessary clinical data elements for COVID tested patients,, and second, the ability to capture aggregate capacity data for resource planning in an administratively efficient manner. Despite significant EHR investments among the city’s hospitals and health systems,, the inability for electronic health records systems to automate delivery of important data elements to public health surveillance systems meant that providers and health systems had to manually enter data into the public health reporting system. However, the high volume of patients and significant work demands on health systems limited timely, and complete manual data entry. As the pandemic unfolded, multiple agencies had requested bed and surge capacity information, including NHSN, FEMA, the National guard, the Illinois Department of Public Health, all with slightly varying definitions (Table 1). Locally, an important aspect of capturing the resource capacity data was to monitor surge capacity and assist with coordination of resources. The multiple reporting requirements, varied definitions, and limited mechanisms for automated, real time submission of key resource metrics such as bed capacities raised concern about the ability to locally monitor the resource capacity across our systems.
List of measures and agencies with mandated reporting in April 2020 for COVID-19 in Chicago
In response to these challenges the Chicago Department of Public Health issued a public health order requiring electronic data sharing,, and partnered with Rush University Medical Center to leverage existing HIT infrastructure for COVID-19 disease to develop a platform for data exchange. Our goals were to use regulated interoperability standards already in production to generate regional bed capacity awareness, enhance the capture of epidemiological risk factors and clinical variables among COVID-19 tested patients, and reduce the administrative burden of reporting for stakeholders in a manner that could be replicated by other public health agencies. As an example of clinically relevant fields of interest for reporting, we compared available fields in data feeds to the CDC PUI form. We also evaluated the completeness of various data sources supplied to the platform and the capacity to link these sources.
Methods
Setting
Chicago is the third largest city in the country and has witnessed a high disease burden of COVID-19, with over 56,000 lab confirmed cases among Chicago residents as of July 15, 2020. This project was conducted by CPDH in partnership with Rush University Medical Center, which was made a third-party agent of CDPH to develop and support the analytics and provide the infrastructure to support the data collection.
Public health notice
On April 6, 2020, the CDPH issued public health order 2020-4 requiring hospitals in Chicago to share electronic health record data with the public health department(9) for all patients tested for COVID-19. The order outlined a constrained set of data to be submitted for all COVID-19 tested patients. This order was disseminated through CDPH’s clinical health alert network, posted on the department’s website, and shared with city hospital leadership on calls. CDPH constituted a governance committee comprised of medical directors and informaticists from hospital systems in Chicago.
Data Feeds
Electronic Lab Records (ELR) feeds were accessed from the Illinois’ National Electronic Disease Surveillance System (I-NEDSS) to provide baseline information on lab confirmed cases in the city. To meet public health order 2020-4, Chicago hospitals were provided multiple mechanisms to submit consolidated clinical data architecture (CCDA) records for COVID-19 tested patients. This included: a) via a secure mailbox that used the DIRECT protocol, a recognized data standard by the Office of the National Coordinator, for the one-way transmission of electronic health records from, as an example, to a centralized instance of Epic for the city, or b) directly to CDPH’s Azure instance via DIRECT or an API, which could ingest the CCDA records. In either case the CCD As were parsed into a database within a dedicated tenant in Azure for analytics. Additionally, a third dataset of NHSN patient safety and hospital capacity was included, which hospitals were asked to either enter into a REDCap database or send electronically to the Azure tenant.
Technical Evaluation
At the project start, we developed the requirements of a solution to collect data from sites and produce the required analytics. We evaluated the gap between the existing CDC PUI form fields and the electronic data elements available in federal standards based data feeds, and developed a crosswalk of reporting requirements to ensure that the data set could function as a reporting gateway for sites and reduce the burden of reporting. Feeds evaluated were electronic laboratory reporting, consolidated clinical data architecture, and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources fields. Comparisons were made based on the latest specifications documents and potential field presence for each. Missingness and usefulness were evaluated among CCDA and ELR feeds. Missingness refers to the presence of data in the field. Usefulness refers to clean, complete information in data field; <100% indicates “unknown” (race, ethnicity, address, etc); for address (PO Boxes, Unknown, Homeless, N/A); phone (no phone, bad number/not enough numbers); ZIP codes <5 digits or 99999 or 00000 or UUUUU etc. Records were deduplicated using name and date of birth. Record match rate between CCDA and ELR data feeds was assessed using last and first name and date of birth.
This investigation was part of the ongoing public health response to COVID-19; thus, was determined to be non-research, public health surveillance and exempt from human subjects’ research regulations.
Results
State surveillance system baseline reporting
In Chicago, a significant proportion of reported cases of SARS CoV-2 infection are reported through ELR. As of June 30, 2020, ELR alone provided 73.7% of cases, while ELR combined with other modalities accounted for 94% of reported cases. ELR data reports key fields requested in the CDC PUI form (Table 2) but not all; fields routinely absent from ELR feeds included travel histories, clinical symptoms, and comorbidities.
Crosswalk table to compare coverage of PUI form fields and ELR, CCDA, and FHIR Resources
*If Notes are shared through FHIR Resources
Response to public health notice
A public health order was shared via the Health Alert Network in Chicago to all eligible institutions. The order mandated the sharing with CDPH of three main data types: 1) ELR feeds of SARS-CoV-2 tested individuals, which were an existing state mandate; 2) CCDA records from hospitals for SARS-CoV-2 tested patients; and 3) NHSN capacity module reporting, which was asked to be sent centrally to CDPH. These data were requested to be sent at a minimum once per day, by 10 am. Sites were also provided contact information for key Rush University Medical Center personnel who were leading the implementation. A series of calls with hospital technical staff were conducted by the Rush CIO (SR) to introduce the project, review rationale, and describe technical approaches.
An Azure hosted and isolated environment was established, with five individual modalities for connectivity; all feeding into a centralized data hub from more than 40 organizations and hundreds of thousands of transactions per week. Over the next 30 days, sites were approached for data sharing; a CDPH data governance committee composed of chief medical officers and chief medical informatics officers from select institutions was created through which issues could be discussed and additional roadmaps could be generated; collaboration with Epic and Cerner EHR developers was established, and mechanisms for enterprise scale sharing was created; and data was sent centrally to the CDPH azure instance.
Technical Architecture
An overview of the technical architecture of the project is shown in Figure 1, and was designed to maximize security and privacy of data, keeping the CDPH at the center of data use. At a high level, because of the tools from meaningful use adoption, connections existed between stakeholders in the system, and could support secure file sharing with the ability to choose records based on criteria. These tools included: a) standards based representation of clinical data (e.g. CCDA) b) secure methods of data transport both within and external to EHR systems (e.g. CareEverywhere within Epic, Direct mailboxes, and API based authenticated pathways) and c) and existing implementation of complex public health rules within EHRs to identify cases, and submit to public health (e.g. ELR reporting).
High level architecture of CDPH Data Hub
A cloud-based environment was created that was totally isolated from the Rush EHR instance and Rush patient records. This environment was built to support over 40 organizations within the city of Chicago and designed to scale across public health departments.
ELR data feeds were the most straightforward to use in the model, as existing connections between hospital systems were present for communicable disease reporting. Hospitals were required to implement new logic at the outset of COVID-19 infections in Chicago to identify and report lab identified cases of COVID-19 to public health, and tested patients as those are PUIs. ELR feeds are submitted to the state public health agency, which makes these available to the CDPH/local health departments.
To isolate data, Rush created an isolated Azure Data Repository including SQL Warehouse and a CosmosDB for survey forms data was created. We found that not all XDS and direct messages could avoid our EHR instance in our plan, which had to be addressed to enforce separation of data. We addressed this by pulling data from the the Epic staging area. In addition, infrastructure components were created that included an XDS service server, Direct Message communication, a CCD to FHIR service, and integration with Epic via a community health aggregator. Apigee handled the API layer, and services were handled behind Apigee for token control. Data collection via manual entries were handled via REDCap forms with integration via the API into the Azure environment.
Governance
Data governance was planned from the project beginning to aid in consensus and principles for data use. While the local health department, with its public health orders, was a necessary recipient and user of the data, participants recognized the value of a larger sharing initiative, plus site participation to engage on use cases and mechanisms to leverage the information. The committee was composed of 12 site CMO, CMIO, or technical leads. These leaders also brought content and guidance back to site participants, and sought to bridge varying degrees of internal technical capabilities among systems. The committee met weekly and helped to build trust among participating sites. General principles were modeled after rules implemented for use of CMS data(10) and were established among sites through this committee. These were:
Openness: Promoting and facilitating the open sharing of knowledge about COVID-19 data.
Communication: Promoting partnerships across the region to eliminate duplication of effort, a source of truth for regional data that may enable reduced administrative burden, and a valuable regional and national resource.
Accountability: Ensuring compliance with approved data management principles and policies. Understanding the objectives of current and future strategic or programmatic initiatives and how they impact, or are impacted by, existing data management principles and policies as well as current privacy and security protocols.
Reporting of bed, supply, and clinical capacity
Metrics mandated for reporting to multiple agencies and groups for Chicago hospitals at the time of the hub creation are shown in Table 1. In this inventory, over 100 measures to 4 systems were required: the National Healthcare Safety Network, EMResource, FEMA, and the Illinois National Guard. The systems measure Bed usage, ED Usage, Ventilator usage, Supply usage and need, and Lab testing. Of note, 57 different bed usage measures alone exist between the 4 systems. Though metrics shown had similar definitions, these still require separate administrative efforts for the collection and reporting of the data.
As of July 31, 2020, 14 hospitals in Chicago were reporting data to the hub. For bed capacity reporting, 7 were reporting NHSN data through manual data submission, 2 were reporting through electronic queries from their EHR with electronic submission to the hub, and 14 were submitting to EMResource.
Completeness of reporting via ELR and CCDA
88,906 total persons from CCDA data among 14 facilities, and 408,741 persons from ELR records among 88 facilities, were submitted. Table 3 shows the volume and completeness of data feeds related to COVID-19 as obtained from CCDA data and with ELR feeds. Individuals with records in these feeds were those with diagnostic testing (i.e molecular) with a Chicago address through July 31, 2020. For those individuals with more than one test reported, data have been deduplicated. Among individuals with CCDA records submitted, 13.1%(11,657) had positive tests, compared with 13.2% (53,968) among ELR feeds.
Completeness of data submitted via CCDA and ELR
*Cell and Home phone not differentiated in ELR feed; Non-missing refers to populated data field; Useful refers to clean, complete information in data field; <100% indicates “unknown” (race, ethnicity, address, etc); for address (PO Boxes, Unknown, Homeless, N/A); phone (no phone, bad number/not enough numbers); ZIP codes <5 digits or 99999 or 00000 or UUUUU etc.
CCDA data provided an improvement in the quality of data available for surveillance. ELR feeds had gaps in the usability, or quality, of race and ethnicity data. With the addition of CCDA information, this content improved. CCDA was also highly complete with <5% for all records types with the exception of patient cell phone, though a contact phone number was highly complete. CCDA, though covering fewer records, also had information related to encounters and hospitalization as well as the presence of comorbidities.
CCDA and ELR data feeds were matched by name and date of birth among 90.1% of patients. With matching, some improvement in data completeness for the three most incomplete fields was noted: race completeness improved to 20.6% (1.4% improvement), ethnicity improved to 41.5% (3.5% improvement), and phone number improved to 31.4%(2.8% improvement)
For presentation, data were displayed on a dashboard available for CDPH analysts, via the Azure Power BI platform and are shown in Figure 2.
Epidemiologic dashboards for assessment of outbreak, CDPH data hub
Discussion
In this report, we describe the development of a city-wide public health data hub for the surveillance of COVID-19 infection. We were able to assess the completeness of existing ELR feeds, augment these feeds with CCDA documents, establish secure transfer methods for data exchange, develop cloud-based architecture to enable secure data storage and analytics, and produced meaningful dashboards for the monitoring of capacity and disease burden.
Electronic laboratory reporting, or the submission electronically of positive lab tests to public health through implementation of business logic for detection, has been found in multiple studies to improve the timeliness and completeness of reporting(11–15), at potentially lower cost(16). A review prior to widespread electronic reporting use found that despite legal mandates for reporting, passive surveillance yielded completeness rates of 23-81% for communicable diseases with higher rates for active surveillance(17), and for timeliness of reporting, between 10-13 days after lab result dates(18). Electronic laboratory reporting (ELR) systems have resulted in improvements in the reporting of data to public health for surveillance. In states that have implemented ELR, the volume and timeliness have improved 2.3-4.4 fold and 3.8-7.9 days earlier, respectively(19). ELR has been a major advance in that it can improve the completeness of reporting over what is found through passive surveillance(16,20). ELR based systems use a trigger of either a test having been performed or resulting as positive to start a submission workflow.
However, we found that ELR data can be incomplete. In prior reports, ELR data has been found to vary in its completeness: the completeness of fields reported via ELR within basic HL7 v 2.x messages ranges from 38% (race) to 98% (date of birth)(20). To improve completeness, groups have proposed 1) increased mandatory fields in ELR HL7 2.x messages(19); 2) augmenting ELR feeds with data from a health information exchange, which improved completeness for race to 60% (20); and 3) electronic case report forms which are completed either through automated data capture or manual completion(21). Significant limitations in case reporting have identified during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited data on key variables such as age, race/ethnicity, hospitalization, and ICU status(22).
Laboratory reporting does not provide all of the information needed for adequate case investigation, however. As our data shows, demographic and risk factor information may not be complete in the HL7 feeds for ELR, and case report forms continue to have a critical role in the work of public health practice. Additionally, co-morbid conditions, a significant predictor of disease outcome, are not captured. We found that CCDA data had a broader set of clinical fields, and have the advantage of providing valuable comorbidity information. While only small improvements in completeness were achieved, a high match rate to ELR data makes CCDA a compelling addition to ELR to improve the analytic power of public health data sets.
Initiatives to standardize and automate case report form completion have been developed (23) and piloted (24), which have shown promise at reducing the time to complete reporting. Similar to our results, others have found that health information exchanges show value in prepopulating key elements for reporting through automated matching and searches in the patient record(25). The use of FHIR(26) may provide a viable path for automatic of public health case reporting and reduce administrative burden: when combined with an ELR based trigger for a case (in this example, sexually transmitted infection cases), an app that executed a FHIR-based query could complete an electronic case report form in 85% of cases(21). Additionally, all the key components of FHIR based workflows for public health reporting are often in place(27).
A feature of our solution is that it supports the central role of local health departments in data aggregation and reporting. An important component of the public health response in many communities is “home rule” for public health agencies(28), or local jurisdiction and control of policy and approach for local health departments. Present in 48 states, home-rule law empowers local governments to address public health issues and fill gaps in the patchwork of national and state based public health response. In the current pandemic, robust local responses that can enable targeted interventions and planning can allow more sophisticated preparedness planning, pandemic control, and epidemiological analysis.
For the most efficient exchange of data, standards for the structure of data shared, and on the semantic representation of information are critical. In this context, the technical and non-technical handshakes and handoffs related to data are key factors in successful programs. In this setting, technical handshakes are the trust relationships between systems to enable data sharing: the ability to use both authenticated API based transfers, and Direct Mailbox shares accelerated time to implementation for the project. Technical handoffs were the ability to have seamless data parsing because of robust standards implemented via meaningful use. The ability to leverage CCDA to increase the completeness of overall PUI reporting, given the greater coverage of fields in the PUI form by CCDA files, is a sign of the value of federal standards for clinical data interchange.
Of more importance were the non-technical “handshakes” - i.e. relationship building and the development of consensus among institutions to enable sharing of data - and “handoffs” - the partnerships between public and private entities. A data governance committee was essential to promote trust, enabled the scaling of the program to new data sets and deeper information within sets. At a time of a surge in COVID-19 cases, a private, academic partner (Rush University Medical Center) with the technical capacity was able to rapidly implement a solution.
We see this public health and clinical data registry as an informative example of the power of common standards across electronic records, and a potential template for future extension of the use of standards to improve public health surveillance.
Data Availability
The data used for this study was reported to the health department and is not publicly available at this time.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors delare no conflicts.
Acknowledgements
None
