R. Gibson Parrish

Electronic health records and US public health: current realities and future promise.

Electronic health records (EHRs) could contribute to improving population health in the United States. Realizing this potential will require understanding what EHRs can realistically offer to efforts to improve population health, the requirements for obtaining useful information from EHRs, and a plan for addressing these requirements. Potential contributions of EHRs to improving population health include better understanding of the level and distribution of disease, function, and well-being within populations. Requirements are improved population coverage of EHRs, standardized EHR content and reporting methods, and adequate legal authority for using EHRs, particularly for population health. A collaborative national effort to address the most pressing prerequisites for and barriers to the use of EHRs for improving population health is needed to realize the EHRs potential.

The population health record: concepts, definition, design, and implementation

In 1997, the American Medical Informatics Association proposed a US information strategy that included a population health record (PopHR). Despite subsequent progress on the conceptualization, development, and implementation of electronic health records and personal health records, minimal progress has occurred on the PopHR. Adapting International Organization for Standarization electronic health records standards, we define the PopHR as a repository of statistics, measures, and indicators regarding the state of and influences on the health of a defined population, in computer processable form, stored and transmitted securely, and accessible by multiple authorized users. The PopHR is based upon an explicit population health framework and a standardized logical information model. PopHR purpose and uses, content and content sources, functionalities, business objectives, information architecture, and system architecture are described. Barriers to implementation and enabling factors and a three-stage implementation strategy are delineated.

Death Investigation Report Forms (DIRFs): Generic Forms for Investigators (IDIRFs) and Certifiers (CDIRFs)

On the basis of data collection procedures and forms used in various death investigation offices, we developed generic death investigation report forms (DIRFs). One form was designed for documenting information collected by the initial investigator of death, and another form was designed for documenting information collected by the medical examiner, pathologist, or other person who certifies the death or otherwise finalizes the investigation by determining the cause, manner, and circumstances of death. The benefits, problems, and criteria associated with designing the forms are discussed. Both the investigators DIRF (IDIRF) and the certifiers DIRF (CDIRF) are available in printed or electronic form for those who wish to use them or to modify them according to their specific needs. We hope that these DIRFs will be useful and promote uniformity in documenting death investigations.

A Review of Global Literature on Using Administrative Data to Estimate Prevalence of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Estimating IDD Prevalence: Reviewing the Global Experience

As understanding of health deficits among people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) increases, concerns grow about how to develop comprehensive, sustainable surveillance systems to reliably monitor the health of this population over time. This study reviews literature from 12 countries in which retrospective administrative data have been used to estimate population-based prevalence of IDD, identifies promising practices in that literature, and discusses the feasibility of applying those promising practices to other countries. Administrative data sources can be used to identify the number of people with IDD (numerators) in the presence of population estimates from which people with IDD are drawn (denominators) for discrete geographic locations. Case ascertainment methods, age groupings, data years captured, and other methods vary, contributing to a wide variation in prevalence rates. Six methods are identified from five countries that appear to offer the greatest likelihood of expanded applications. Approaches in which administrative data collections are linked with other population-based data sources appear promising as a means of estimating the size and characteristics of populations living with IDD in defined geographic locations. They offer the potential for sustainability, timeliness, accuracy, and efficiency.

Friedman and Parrish respond.

We thank Kaye et al. for their helpful comments on our article. As they indicate, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Primary Care Information Project, its Hub Population Network, and the associated NYC Macroscope are accomplishing three key steps in utilizing electronic health records for public health intervention and population health information: (1) collecting essential indicators from patients, (2) aggregating those indicators at the population level, and, especially encouraging, (3) validating the representativeness of the collected data at the population level. We congratulate Kaye and her colleagues, and we look forward to reviewing the results of their efforts.