Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Transl Sci. 2017 Aug;1(4):246-252. doi: 10.1017/cts.2017.301.

A survey of practices for the use of electronic health records to support research recruitment.

Author information

1
Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
2
Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
3
NC Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
4
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Utah Center for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
5
Institute of Translational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
6
Informatics Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
7
Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
8
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
9
Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide great promise for identifying cohorts and enhancing research recruitment. Such approaches are sorely needed, but there are few descriptions in the literature of prevailing practices to guide their use. A multidisciplinary workgroup was formed to examine current practices in the use of EHRs in recruitment and to propose future directions. The group surveyed consortium members regarding current practices. Over 98% of the Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium responded to the survey. Brokered and self-service data warehouse access are in early or full operation at 94% and 92% of institutions, respectively, whereas, EHR alerts to providers and to research teams are at 45% and 48%, respectively, and use of patient portals for research is at 20%. However, these percentages increase significantly to 88% and above if planning and exploratory work were considered cumulatively. For most approaches, implementation reflected perceived demand. Regulatory and workflow processes were similarly varied, and many respondents described substantive restrictions arising from logistical constraints and limitations on collaboration and data sharing. Survey results reflect wide variation in implementation and approach, and point to strong need for comparative research and development of best practices to protect patients and facilitate interinstitutional collaboration and multisite research.

KEYWORDS:

CTSA; Electronic health records; biomedical informatics; clinical research; recruitment

Grant support

Grant support

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center