Primary Care EHR Coding Integration: Enhancing Patient Registries

Introduction

The healthcare landscape is increasingly recognizing the immense value of data-driven approaches for improving patient care and health outcomes. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have become central to this transformation, serving as rich repositories of patient-level clinical information. Simultaneously, patient registries, organized systems collecting uniform data to evaluate outcomes for specific populations, have emerged as crucial tools for research, quality improvement, and policy development. While EHRs are primarily designed for clinical and administrative tasks within healthcare systems, their data is highly relevant and valuable for patient registries, especially in the context of primary care. Primary care, being the frontline of healthcare, generates a vast amount of diverse patient data within EHR systems. Therefore, effective Primary Care Ehr Coding Integration is becoming increasingly important to leverage this data for patient registries.

EHRs, fundamentally, are electronic systems maintained by healthcare providers to digitally store patient medical information.c They capture a wide array of data over time, including demographics, diagnoses, medications, and lab results, supporting clinical workflows and healthcare administration. The National Academies of Medicine highlight core EHR functionalities such as health information capture, order management, decision support, communication, and population health reporting.2

Patient registries, in contrast, are purpose-driven and patient-centered, designed to derive insights into specific exposures and health outcomes.1 They systematically collect uniform data to serve predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy goals. Despite these differing primary purposes—EHRs being visit-centered and registries being patient-centered—EHRs hold a wealth of data directly applicable to registries, particularly in primary care settings. Furthermore, EHRs can streamline registry functions like data collection and storage, while registries can enhance the value of EHR data through comparative effectiveness research, population management, and quality reporting.3

The integration of EHRs and patient registries offers significant opportunities for health systems. Within a single system, functionalities can be combined to create EHR-integrated registries. However, these often remain confined to a single health system’s patient population and may struggle to capture longitudinal data across different care settings. Registries that aggregate data from multiple health systems often rely on interfaces to receive EHR data periodically (EHR-linked registries). Automating these processes and establishing bidirectional data exchange remains a key challenge, especially within the diverse landscape of primary care practices and EHR systems.

The Meaningful Use program has been a catalyst for the development of both EHR-linked and EHR-integrated registries (see Chapter 1). EHR-integrated registries have expanded to meet certification requirements and support workflow efficiency and quality improvement initiatives. EHR-linked registries have grown due to mandates for reporting EHR data to external registries, such as public health and quality reporting registries.4 Meaningful Use Stage-1 included objectives for submitting EHR-extracted data to immunization registries,5 and Stage-2 expanded this to cancer and other specialized registries.6 These initiatives underscore the growing importance of primary care EHR coding integration for broader healthcare data utilization.

The incentives driven by programs like Meaningful Use have spurred EHR vendors and providers to improve processes for EHR-based registries. However, the use of EHR-based registries, particularly in primary care, is still evolving and faces numerous challenges.7 This chapter will explore the opportunities and challenges of integrating or linking EHRs and patient registries, focusing on primary care EHR coding integration. It will review relevant EHR data types, present use cases for integration, propose technical architectures, and discuss future directions for EHR-registry collaboration, especially within primary care. Key considerations for incorporating EHR data are also outlined in Appendix B.

Common Primary Care EHR Data Types for Registry Integration

EHRs in primary care settings capture a wide range of data types that can be effectively integrated into patient registries. The Meaningful Use program and subsequent initiatives have promoted the collection of a Common Clinical Data Set (CCDS) across providers, making these data types increasingly available in EHRs. This availability is expected to expand further with the Office of the National Coordinator’s (ONC) push towards the U.S. Core Data for Interoperability (USCDI) requirement under the 21st Century Cures Act.8 Beyond common data types, primary care EHRs also contain emerging data types of significant interest to registries. These data types are detailed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.

Table 4-1

Common data types of EHRs that can be integrated/interfaced with internal/external registries.

Table 4-2

Emerging data types of EHRs that can be integrated/interfaced with internal/external registries.

In addition to structured data, primary care EHRs also contain substantial unstructured data, such as clinical notes, which can be processed to extract specific information relevant to registries. Data types commonly extracted from EHRs and imported into registries include patient identifiers, demographics, diagnoses, medications, procedures, laboratory results, vital signs, and utilization events. These are particularly crucial in primary care and are discussed in more detail below, highlighting aspects relevant to primary care EHR coding integration.

Patient Identifiers in Primary Care EHR Systems

Primary care EHRs are designed to efficiently identify individual patients within clinical workflows. Patient identifiers in these systems include full names, dates of birth, contact details (address, phone numbers), next-of-kin information, emergency contacts, and other personal information necessary for healthcare operations, such as employer and insurance details. For internal operations, EHRs generate a unique patient ID (medical record number). Larger organizations may use a master patient record for identification across multiple facilities. Connection to a health information exchange (HIE) may introduce a third identifier from the HIE (statewide master patient index).9

With proper consent and HIPAA compliance,10 patient identifiers from primary care EHRs can be used to merge records with patient registries. For example, registries might collaborate with HIEs to locate master patient indexes and request EHR records from multiple providers. However, not all registries have HIE access. Alternative matching methods are used, but potential errors in matching patients can lead to data quality issues. Accurate patient identification is foundational for effective primary care EHR coding integration and data utilization in registries.

Demographics: Capturing Primary Care Populations

Primary care EHRs routinely capture patient demographic information like age, gender, and ethnicity/race. These data are essential for clinical operations and mandated by Meaningful Use objectives. The quality of age and gender data is generally high due to these mandates.11–13 However, demographic data quality can be affected by measurement methods, user errors, and data conversion issues.14 Non-essential demographic data, such as income, marital status, education, and nationality, may have higher missing data rates.15, 16

While coding standards exist for demographic data, they are not always consistently applied, especially for education and nationality. Age data has HIPAA-related sharing limitations depending on granularity.17 Demographic data is vital for matching patient records across sources in registries. Legal limitations on sharing demographic data can hinder the development of multi-source EHR-based registries, especially those involving primary care data. Standardized and compliant demographic data capture in primary care EHR coding integration is crucial for registry accuracy and utility.

Diagnoses and Primary Care EHR Coding Integration

Diagnosis data is often a primary criterion for patient inclusion in registries. The accuracy of diagnosis data in EHRs is considered acceptable, partly due to mandates for accurate data collection.10–12 Primary care EHRs also use problem lists to differentiate active and non-active diagnoses, though problem list data may require further validation.

Several established vocabulary standards are used for encoding diagnoses, including ICD,18 ICPC,19 SNOMED,20 DSM,21 and Read Codes.22 In the U.S., ICD is the most common system for diagnosis coding in EHRs and registries. Mapping between different coding systems, or even between versions of the same system (e.g., ICD-9 to ICD-10), is complex. Furthermore, certain sensitive diagnostic codes, like HIV status and mental illness diagnoses, are protected by laws23 that may restrict their use in external registries. Effective primary care EHR coding integration must address these coding complexities and legal restrictions to ensure accurate and compliant use of diagnosis data in registries. The use of standardized coding in primary care settings directly impacts the quality and usability of this data for registry purposes.

Medications and e-Prescribing Data in Primary Care

Medication data, alongside diagnoses, is frequently used as eligibility criteria in registries and is essential for studying treatment effects and safety. Primary care EHRs contain prescription information, while pharmacy claims data reflect filled prescriptions. Combining EHR medication data with pharmacy claims allows for the derivation of important metrics like medication adherence and reconciliation rates.[24](#ch4.ref24]

The quality of medication data in EHRs is generally good due to mandates for data collection. Common vocabulary standards include NDCs,25 RxNorm,26 SNOMED,[20](#ch4.ref20] ATC,27 and commercial drug codes. Each standard addresses different aspects of medication information. Semantic interoperability issues can arise when medication data from multiple sources are combined and mapped between coding systems. For instance, an RxNorm code might map to multiple NDC codes. Furthermore, some EHR-derived medication data may lack specificity for research, especially regarding generics and biosimilars. Standardized medication coding within primary care EHR coding integration is crucial for data accuracy and interoperability in registries, especially given the high volume of prescriptions managed in primary care.

Procedures in Primary Care Settings

Procedure data, including surgical, radiology, pathology, and laboratory procedures, can be extracted from primary care EHRs and reported to registries. However, EHR-reported procedures typically only include those performed within the provider’s facilities and may miss procedures done elsewhere.

Vocabulary standards for procedures include ICD-CM,18 CPT,28 and HCPCS.29 Each system is designed for specific clinical contexts. EHR-based procedure data may lack the detail needed for registries, such as specific techniques used in a procedure. These nuances are often in unstructured data and not included in structured EHR extracts. Improving the granularity and standardization of procedure coding within primary care EHR coding integration would enhance the value of this data for registries.

Laboratory Data from Primary Care

Laboratory data, including orders and results, is best sourced from standalone laboratory information systems, which are often integrated into EHRs. Coding standards for lab data include LOINC,30 SNOMED,[20](#ch4.ref20] and CPT.28 Currently, there are no mandated laboratory coding systems for certified EHRs, with many providers relying on local coding systems. This limits interoperability for multi-site EHR-derived lab data in registries.

Different facilities may use different tests and codes for the same analyte. Automated tools are needed to link lab items across provider networks so a single query returns all relevant data from multiple EHRs. Certain sensitive lab results, such as HIV status, may be restricted from EHR extracts. Furthermore, some lab data may be accessible to clinicians without being formally incorporated into the EHR, potentially leading to missing data in registry extracts. Standardization of laboratory coding and improved primary care EHR coding integration of lab systems are crucial for comprehensive registry data.

Vital Signs Monitoring in Primary Care

Primary care EHRs are a primary source of vital signs data, including height, weight, BMI, pulse rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and temperature. LOINC is the common coding standard for vital signs. However, many organizations do not actively use LOINC codes in their EHRs as it is not mandated.

The completeness of EHR-derived vital signs like height and weight is generally acceptable for registry use. Data quality issues can arise from human errors and unit of measurement inconsistencies, necessitating data cleaning.31 EHRs may also lack important metadata, such as whether blood pressure was taken sitting or standing. Consistent and accurate capture of vital signs, including metadata and standardized coding within primary care EHR coding integration, is essential for reliable registry data.

Utilization and Cost Data in Primary Care Settings

Utilization data can be extracted from primary care EHRs, especially when insurance claims data are unavailable. However, EHR-level utilization data is limited to events within the provider’s facilities and may miss data from other providers. Utilization can include cost, hospitalization, readmission, emergency room visits, and other healthcare events. The quality and completeness of utilization data are often acceptable due to reimbursement guidelines.12

There are no specific standard utilization coding terminologies for EHRs, but most EHRs follow claims submission guidelines. Reimbursement policies often recommend specific reference-coding systems for utilization events. Certain sensitive utilization events, such as mental health visits, may be restricted from EHR data extracts. Comprehensive utilization data, accurately coded and integrated through primary care EHR coding integration, is valuable for registries, particularly for cost-effectiveness and outcomes research.

Surveys and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Primary Care

Survey data, often collected through questionnaires, is increasingly stored within EHRs for various purposes. Some primary care EHRs offer standardized surveys via patient portals to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROMIS).[32](#ch4.ref32] Risk factors and self-reported behaviors, important for registries, can be derived from EHR-integrated surveys, such as smoking status and socioeconomic status. Registries may also integrate custom questionnaires into EHRs for direct patient data entry.

EHR-integrated surveys are susceptible to biases. Data quality varies depending on the questionnaire, and the validity of custom surveys can be hard to measure in clinical practice. Surveys often lack coding standards, and variables may be coded differently even for the same concept. Standardized questionnaires across EHRs and providers can improve data quality. Using standardized surveys and ensuring proper primary care EHR coding integration of survey data can enhance the richness of registry data.

Social Data and Determinants of Health in Primary Care EHRs

Social data, including individual and community-level factors like smoking status, socioeconomic status, and housing conditions, are increasingly recognized as important determinants of health. These variables are crucial for understanding social context and disparities related to health outcomes. Social data in registries can assess treatment affordability and heterogeneity of treatment effects. However, social and behavioral data are not routinely captured in primary care EHRs.[14](#ch4.ref14] EHR-derived social data is often incomplete and limited.[33](#ch4.ref33] Social determinants of health from external sources are typically missing due to interoperability issues.34

While coding standards for social data are proposed, most EHRs use proprietary vocabularies. Social data quality is often low due to incomplete survey responses and subjective questions. Although mostly not subject to HIPAA, social data may be subject to other privacy rules like FERPA.[35](#ch4.ref35] Linking EHR data with social service records and registries faces technical and regulatory hurdles. Improved capture, standardization, and primary care EHR coding integration of social determinants of health are vital for registries aiming to address health equity.

Patient-Generated Health Data in Primary Care

Patient-generated health data (PGHD) includes a wide array of variables, such as activity levels, sleep patterns, symptoms, and blood sugar levels, often captured through personal health records, mobile health platforms, and wearable devices.[36](#ch4.ref36] EHR-based PGHD is highly customized and inconsistent across systems. Standards are emerging for mobile health and wearables,[37](#ch4.ref37] but adoption in EHRs is limited. Data quality and comparability from different devices remain challenging. Self-reported data is prone to biases and errors. Interoperability may become more complex with more non-standardized devices. Consent processes for PGHD can be complex, and legal and regulatory issues require careful attention for EHR-integrated registries.38, [39](#ch4.ref39] Developing standardized methods for incorporating and coding PGHD within primary care EHR coding integration is a growing area of importance for registries.

Use Cases for Primary Care EHR Coding Integration with Registries

Registries incorporating primary care EHR data utilize various IT system architectures. Factors like the number of sites, EHR system diversity, and HIE connectivity influence architecture choices. Registries for clinical care often use single enterprise-level EHRs, while research registries are often external to EHRs but receive data extracts. Public health registries are typically hosted by health departments and receive regular EHR reports. These are general examples, and actual IT infrastructure varies.

Table 4-3

IT infrastructure and other features of sample registry types using EHR data.

Ideally, registry functionality could be a software-as-a-service model, interacting with EHRs as a presentation layer and registry database. This would allow EHRs to be gateways to multiple registries through open architecture. However, full interoperability is not yet realized, and customized architectures are needed to integrate EHRs and registries.[3](#ch4.ref3] The following examples illustrate IT architectures for EHR-integrated/linked registries in clinical operations, research, and public health, highlighting the role of primary care EHR coding integration in each.

EHR-Integrated Registries to Support Primary Care Clinical Practice

Healthcare providers often develop EHR-based registries for clinical care and operational goals, termed ‘clinical registries’. These registries use EHR-based tools from vendors to facilitate clinical workflows, monitor quality metrics, enable disease/cohort management, and support population health management, especially within primary care. The Triple Aim of care, health, and cost drives value-based care and cost reduction.[40](#ch4.ref40] Population health management is crucial for directing resources to high-risk patients.[41](#ch4.ref41] This necessitates EHR-based registries focused on high-risk subpopulations in primary care, such as patients with chronic conditions like diabetes.42, [43](#ch4.ref43]

A challenge for EHR-integrated clinical registries is the lack of out-of-network data.[44](#ch4.ref44] Data from providers outside the network using different EHRs are missed, leading to incomplete data. Health networks may supplement EHR data with insurance claims, but this is not always practical due to the diversity of insurers. Many challenges stem from broader issues in population health informatics.[45](#ch4.ref45] Effective primary care EHR coding integration within a network is crucial but needs to consider external data sources for a complete patient picture.

Clinical registries typically use a centralized architecture with an EHR data warehouse and data marts. Centralized models offer simplicity, data consistency, and easier patient linkage within a network. Disadvantages include limited data capture outside the EHR vendor network and difficult data exchange with other networks due to interoperability issues.

Healthcare networks often build clinical registries based on their enterprise EHR architecture (Figure 4-1). Data from different facilities are aggregated in a central data warehouse. Facilities with different EHR platforms require extra effort to harmonize data. Data warehouses feed data marts for various registries, such as quality measures, disease management, population health, and public health reporting. Internal clinical registries are sometimes linked to external registries for reporting purposes,[46](#ch4.ref46] though interoperability can be a barrier.

Figure 4-1

Common architecture of EHR-integrated registries to support clinical care. CDM = Chronic Disease Management; HER = Electronic Health Record; PH = Public Health; PHM = Population Health Management; PQRS = Physician Quality Reporting System; QI = Quality (more…)

EHR-Linked Registries for Primary Care Research

Registries for research, termed ‘research registries’, use primary care EHR data in various ways. They may use EHR data to identify and enroll eligible patients for studies with supplementary data collection. In this case, EHR data are used for eligibility screening, with minimal EHR data imported into the registry. Registry-specific data is collected separately, often via eCRFs and web-based surveys. At the other end, some research registries are built entirely from EHR data, like the California Cancer Registry.47 Many use a combination of self-reported and EHR data, such as the Autism Treatment Network.47 EHR-linked registries periodically merge EHR extracts with registry data. For primary care research, these registries can be invaluable for studying common conditions and interventions.

Increasing interoperability drives EHR-linked registries. They often use APIs to extract standardized EHR data and semi-automated approaches to merge it with registry records. Bidirectional EHR-linked registries can also deliver registry findings back to clinicians, such as data on disease natural history, safety, effectiveness, and quality. This feedback loop is especially important in primary care for translating research into practice.

EHR-linked research registries collect EHR data through automated push protocols or manual database pulls. Triggers for data extraction follow registry inclusion/exclusion criteria (phenotyping queries). After data receipt, registries use a multi-phase import process (Figure 4-2). ETL (extract, transform, load) functions include data curation, standardization, secure transfer, mapping, redaction, integration, and reconciliation. Organizations like CDISC and S&I Framework promote mechanisms for automating EHR data incorporation for registries (e.g., CDISC Link Initiative48). Common data models facilitate EHR data integration and data sharing (e.g., CIMI Reference Model,49 FDA Sentinel Initiative,50 OMOP CDM51). Chapter 5 provides more details on common data models. Standardized primary care EHR coding integration is essential for the success of these research registries.

Importing and merging EHR data into research registries is complex. Automation requires high interoperability, data curation, and harmonization, along with attention to data quality. Differing inclusion criteria encoding in EHRs can impact data comparability and introduce bias.52 Merging EHR data with registry data requires reliable master patient indexing to avoid inaccurate patient-matching.9, 53 Data curation is critical due to potential data quality issues.[54](#ch4.ref54]

Data governance is also important. Research registries may be funded by various organizations (federal, state, non-profit, private). While patient privacy is protected by laws,[55](#ch4.ref55] data governance policies vary, creating different barriers to EHR data integration.[56](#ch4.ref56] Incentives and liabilities for EHR data extraction and sharing also need clarification.[57](#ch4.ref57]

Figure 4-2

Common architecture of EHR-linked research registries. HER = Electronic Health Record; ETL = Export, Transform, and Load

EHR-Linked Public Health Registries and Primary Care Reporting

Public health agencies have long used registries for surveillance and tracking. Immunization registries, syndromic surveillance, and registries for birth defects, chronic diseases, and injuries are common. With increased EHR adoption, public health entities have linked registries with EHRs. The Meaningful Use program significantly drove EHR integration by incentivizing EHR data sharing for immunization and syndromic surveillance.[7](#ch4.ref7] Data standards maturation and value-based care initiatives also contribute to this trend. Primary care EHR coding integration plays a crucial role in enabling effective public health reporting and surveillance.

Most EHR-linked public health registries have used semi-automated processes, with more automation recently introduced (e.g., vaccination registries). Their architecture is similar to EHR-linked research registries (Figure 4-2), but data collection methods vary, as not all require patient-level data. Methods include: (1) semi-automated forms for public health data collection (e.g., S&I Framework SDC);60 (2) data exchange protocols for case reports from certified EHRs (e.g., MU public health reporting objectives);7 (3) tools to mine EHR and HIE data for public health emergencies (e.g., ESSENCE Syndromic Surveillance System);61 and (4) distributed data network queries for aggregated data (e.g., PopMedNet).[62](#ch4.ref62]

Some public health agencies have directly integrated registries with clinician EHRs within their jurisdiction. The NYC Population Health Registry is a prime example.63 It collects data from NYC healthcare professionals across domains like influenza-like illnesses. Its success is partly due to the common EHR system used by most NYC professionals, enabling real-time data reporting. The Registry is part of the NYC Macroscope Hub,64 a surveillance system for primary care-managed conditions like obesity and diabetes. This highlights the potential of primary care EHR coding integration for real-time public health surveillance.

Technical and Operational Challenges in Primary Care EHR Coding Integration

EHR-based registries serve diverse purposes and use various architectures, but many technical and operational challenges are common, especially within primary care settings. These include patient identification, data quality, unstructured data, interoperability, data sharing, privacy, data access, and human resources. Addressing these challenges is paramount for successful primary care EHR coding integration.

Identifying Eligible Patients in Primary Care EHRs

Retrieval protocols and phenotyping methods are used to define patient populations and identify eligible patients for registries from EHR data.[52](#ch4.ref52] Computational phenotyping operationalizes definitions as measures captured during clinical care and stored in EHRs. Data for phenotyping include medications, lab tests, and diagnoses.[52](#ch4.ref52] Operationalized definitions are used for cohort screening, healthcare delivery assessments, and evaluating new practices. Evaluating these definitions is crucial due to potential biases and missing data in EHRs. Validation metrics like predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity are commonly reported. Frameworks exist to characterize limitations of operational definitions with EHR data to quantify confidence in findings.52, [65](#ch4.ref65]

Challenges in primary care EHR data extraction for registries include denominator and variable selection. Ambiguous phenotyping algorithms and lack of standardized protocols can lead to irrelevant or biased denominators. Factors like age, gender, diagnoses, medications, lab results, and administrative data refine population definitions. Selecting EHR data timeframes is complex and can result in incomplete temporal data. EHR data nuances can affect selection results:

Process of Care: Different providers and workflows generate different data values for the same event within the same EHR.
Nature of Intervention: Interventions with varying risk levels may be coded similarly, obscuring true risk factors in EHRs.43, 66

Standardizing phenotyping and retrieval protocols within primary care EHR coding integration is vital for accurate patient identification in registries.

Data Quality in Primary Care EHRs and Coding Accuracy

Registries should implement data curation to assess data quality. EHR-based registries face data quality issues because EHR data often requires extensive cleaning before registry import. EHRs are designed for healthcare transactions and billing, not systematic research-grade longitudinal data collection. Data quality in EHRs is variable.14, [45](#ch4.ref45] For example, lab and medication data are often reliable, but risk factors and socioeconomic status data are less consistent and detailed.[16](#ch4.ref16] Data quality affects both registry data and derived results, potentially making EHR data unsuitable for some research purposes. Ensuring data quality through improved primary care EHR coding integration and data governance is paramount.

Key aspects of data quality for registries are:[14](#ch4.ref14]

Accuracy: How well EHR data reflects the true state, often hard to measure due to unknown true values.
Completeness: Level of missing data for a data element for the population. Important for EHR-integrated registries. Distinguish between “must-have” and “nice-to-have” data, prioritizing completeness of “must-have” data.
Timeliness: Time between value capture and EHR availability.

Data quality varies across EHRs and healthcare organizations. EHR system changes can impact data quality, requiring updates to extraction protocols. Data quality evaluation should be an ongoing process, not a one-time task. Focus on improving data accuracy and completeness through better primary care EHR coding integration and data management practices.

Unstructured Data in Primary Care Notes

EHRs contain significant unstructured data, like progress notes. Free text is effective for clinical workflows but challenging for automated EHR-based registries. Unstructured data may contain key patient information missing in structured data, complementary information, or contradictory data. Text mining and natural language processing tools have limited accuracy in extracting information from free text,[67](#ch4.ref67] prompting manual chart reviews for registry inclusion. Unstructured data limits automated phenotyping and increases data quality issues when only structured EHR data is used.

EHRs also allow data entry in multiple places, leading to fragmented data storage. Treatment information might be in clinical notes, inaccessible for research due to patient identifiers and redaction challenges. Improving structured data capture and developing better tools for unstructured data extraction are crucial for primary care EHR coding integration and maximizing data utilization in registries.

Interoperability Challenges for Primary Care EHR Integration

Interoperability is the ability to exchange and use electronic health information between systems without special effort.[68](#ch4.ref68] It involves sending, receiving, finding, and using data.[68](#ch4.ref68] Interoperability spans regulatory, contractual, privacy, exchange formats, content, and technology standards.68, [69](#ch4.ref69] Functional interoperability for EHRs and registries is a standards-based solution enabling any EHR to exchange valid information with any registry, improving provider and patient efficiency without significant customization.[3](#ch4.ref3]

While EHR interoperability has increased,[70](#ch4.ref70] most health systems do not share in-depth EHR data. Lack of interoperability is a major barrier to EHR data extraction, integration, and linkage for registries, especially in the fragmented primary care landscape. Most EHRs are not fully interoperable for easy registry participation.[3](#ch4.ref3] This is due to technical and economic barriers to standards-based interoperability solutions.[3](#ch4.ref3] EHR vendors also customize systems heavily, further hindering interoperability.[3](#ch4.ref3] Improving interoperability across primary care EHR systems is key to enabling EHR-based registries.

Data sharing and interoperability challenges extend to bidirectional data flow. In a learning health system, registries should share findings with data providers. However, standards for sharing registry findings while protecting provider identity are lacking. Sharing data quality findings is also challenging due to potential legal ramifications.

Linking EHR data sources requires patient matching across databases. HIEs are sometimes needed for master patient indexes (MPIs), but MPI development is complex and can introduce errors.[9](#ch4.ref9] MPI data elements are often protected health information under HIPAA, limiting their availability for registries. Addressing interoperability and data sharing challenges through standardized primary care EHR coding integration and data exchange protocols is critical for the future of EHR-based registries.

EHR Infrastructure and Deployment in Primary Care Settings

EHRs may provide infrastructure and tools for EHR-based registries but typically not turnkey registry solutions. EHR-based clinical data warehouses collect EHR data across health networks, serving as backbones for EHR-integrated registries (see Chapter 2). However, challenges in updating, maintaining, scaling, and sharing these tools hinder registry development.

EHR deployment architecture within a healthcare system influences EHR utility for registries. Health systems without enterprise-level EHR architectures may struggle to develop system-wide EHR-integrated registries, as standalone EHRs lack interoperability for data sharing. Standardized EHR infrastructure and improved primary care EHR coding integration tools are needed to facilitate registry development and deployment, particularly for smaller primary care practices.

Data Access, Privacy, and Use in Primary Care EHR Data Sharing

Data access and privacy are complex in multi-site EHR-based registries. Chapters 7 and 8 of the User’s Guide provide more information on ethics, informed consent, and patient privacy. Data sharing is a major concern. Decisions are needed on single IRB review versus local IRB approval. Governance is challenging as data sharing rules vary depending on organizations and research purposes. These challenges are amplified in primary care due to the diverse and often independent nature of practices. Establishing clear data access, privacy, and governance frameworks for primary care EHR coding integration and data sharing is essential for ethical and legal compliance.

Human Resources and Expertise for Primary Care EHR Coding Integration

Most healthcare providers, especially small primary care practices, lack adequate staff time and expertise to address EHR-registry integration challenges. Various types of expertise are needed:

Regulatory/ethics – data sharing permissions
Scientific – important research questions
Research design – methodology
Clinical – data interpretation
Informatics – data integrity from collection to analysis
IT – data curation and management
Statistics and epidemiology – data analysis

While EHRs may offer cost-effective registry solutions, comprehensive data capture may negate this benefit due to workflow changes. Hypothetically, EHR-based registry data collection could occur during clinical encounters, reducing costs, but this is not yet widespread. Providing resources, training, and expertise in primary care EHR coding integration and data management is crucial to enable wider adoption and effective use of EHR-based registries.

International Perspectives on Primary Care EHR and Registry Integration

Some international registries derive data from national health insurance programs. Nordic countries leverage universal coverage, nationwide registries, and individual-level linkage for observational medical research and pragmatic trials.72–[76](#ch4.ref76] EHRs can be readily linked with registry data using national identifiers. The UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)77 and The Health Improvement Network (THIN) are important EHR-based data sources. They capture routine data from general practices with built-in data checks. Linked data may include hospital records and socioeconomic data. These resources, while not explicitly focused on primary care EHR coding integration, demonstrate the power of national-scale EHR data for research.

Routine records are collected in many European countries, including Netherlands,[78](#ch4.ref78], [79](#ch4.ref79] Italy,[79](#ch4.ref79], [80](#ch4.ref80] Scotland,[81](#ch4.ref81] Germany,[82](#ch4.ref82] France,[83](#ch4.ref83] and Spain.[84](#ch4.ref84], though generally with less national coverage than England. Canada85 and Asian countries like South Korea86 and Taiwan87 also maintain routine health records. While not initially for research, routine data is increasingly important for health and disease studies, including post-marketing risk management. These international examples highlight the potential for leveraging routine EHR data, including primary care data, for large-scale registries and research, emphasizing the need for robust data infrastructure and standardized primary care EHR coding integration practices.

The Future of Primary Care EHR Coding Integration for Enhanced Registries

The true potential of EHRs for registries lies in creating practical, scalable, and efficient data collection methods for diverse purposes. Digitized information can dramatically reduce scalability constraints.[3](#ch4.ref3] Paper records are limited by difficulties in patient identification and data re-entry.[3](#ch4.ref3] Digital data can ease both, enabling larger, more diverse patient populations and avoiding duplication of effort.[3](#ch4.ref3] However, this requires EHRs to capture data with consistent, interoperable definitions, or for data to be transformed into standardized formats through technologies like natural language processing.[3](#ch4.ref3] Standardized primary care EHR coding integration is a fundamental step towards this future.

Despite challenges, EHRs will likely play a key role in expanding registries. Multiple factors will increase EHR’s role:

Advancements in Interoperability Standards: Initiatives like FHIR88 are improving data exchange.
Policy Drivers: Programs like MACRA90 and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs89 encourage EHR use for quality reporting and data sharing.
Growing Recognition of EHR Data Value: EHR data is increasingly seen as a valuable resource for research and healthcare improvement.
Focus on Patient-Centered Care: EHRs can support patient engagement and patient-generated data integration.

Future research should develop and disseminate guidelines and technical documentation for registry integration with EHRs. Achieving fully interoperable EHR-based registries, where EHRs and registries seamlessly function together, remains a long-term goal.[3](#ch4.ref3] However, achieving a significant level of interoperability is crucial to prevent information silos and enable large-scale EHR-based registries for research and improved healthcare across diverse practices and populations, especially within primary care. Focusing on standardized primary care EHR coding integration, data quality, interoperability, and addressing the identified challenges will pave the way for this future.

Footnotes

cEHRs are sometimes referred to as Electronic Medical Records (EMRs). This chapter uses both terms interchangeably.

References for Chapter 4

1.Gliklich R, Dreyer N, Leavy M, eds. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. Third edition. Two volumes. (Prepared by the Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc., a Quintiles company] under Contract No. 290 2005 00351 TO7.) AHRQ Publication No. 13(14)-EHC111. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2014. http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.

2.Aspden P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, et al. Key Capabilities of an Electronic Health Record System: Letter Report. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2004.

3.Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, Leavy MB. Interfacing Registries With Electronic Health Records. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. 2. Third ed. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2014. p. 3–22. [PubMed: 24945055]

4.Dixon BE, Gibson PJ, Grannis SJ. Estimating Increased Electronic Laboratory Reporting Volumes for Meaningful Use: Implications for the Public Health Workforce. Online Journal of Public Health Informatics. 2014;5(3):225. PMID: 24678378. DOI: 10.5210/ojphi.v5i3.4939. [PMC free article: PMC3959912] [PubMed: 24678378] [CrossRef]

5.Electronic Health Record Incentive Program, 42 CFR 412, 413, 422, 495 (2010).

6.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Summary of Public Health Objectives in Stage 2 Meaningful Use ONC and CMS Final Rules Version 1.1. 2014; https://www.cdc.gov/ehrmeaningfuluse/docs/summary-of-ph-objectives-in-stage-2-mu-onc-and-cms-final-rules_04_01_2014.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2019.

7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Meaningful Use. https://www.cdc.gov/ehrmeaningfuluse/. Accessed August 15, 2019.

8.U.S. Core Data for Interoperability. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Version 1. https://www.healthit.gov/isa/us-core-data-interoperability-uscdi. Accessed June 18, 2019.

9.The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Patient Identification and Matching: Final Report. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/patient_identification_matching_final_report.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2019.

10.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Part 164-Security and Privacy. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title45-vol1/pdf/CFR-2011-title45-vol1-part164.pdf. Accessed August 16, 2019.

11.Jha AK, Burke MF, DesRoches C, et al. Progress Toward Meaningful Use: Hospitals’ Adoption of Electronic Health Records. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(12 Spec No.):SP117–24. PMID: 22216770. [PubMed: 22216770]

12.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 edition. Fed Regist. 2012 Sep 4; 77(171):54163–292. PMID: 22946139. [PubMed: 22946139]

13.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Acute Care Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System. Medicare Learning Network. December 21, 2012.

14.Chan KS, Fowles JB, Weiner JP. Review: electronic health records and the reliability and validity of quality measures: a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2010;67(5):503–27. PMID: 20150441. DOI: 10.1177/1077558709359007. [PubMed: 20150441] [CrossRef]

15.Madden JM, Lakoma MD, Rusinak D, et al. Missing clinical and behavioral health data in a large electronic health record (EHR) system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(6):1143–9. PMID: 27079506. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw021. [PMC free article: PMC5070522] [PubMed: 27079506] [CrossRef]

16.Mendelsohn AB, Dreyer NA, Mattox PW, et al. Characterization of Missing Data in Clinical Registry Studies. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49(1):146–54. PMID: 30222467. DOI: 10.1177/2168479014532259. [PubMed: 30222467] [CrossRef]

17.Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 139 (1996) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.). HIPAA Privacy Rule Regulations codified at 45 CFR pts. 160 & 164 (2010).

18.(CDC) CfDCaP. International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm. Accessed August 16, 2019.

19.World Health Organization (WHO). International Classification of Primary Care, Second Edition (ICPC-2). http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/adaptations/icpc2/en/. Accessed August 16, 2019.

20.National Library of Medicine (NLM). SNOMED CT. 2017; https://www.snomed.org/. Accessed June 10, 2019.

21.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®): APA Publishing; 2013.

22.National Library of Medicine. Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/index.html. Accessed August 15, 2019.

23.42 CFR Part 2 – Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2010-title42-vol1/CFR-2010-title42-vol1-part2. Accessed August 16, 2019.

24.George J, Phun YT, Bailey MJ, et al. Development and validation of the medication regimen complexity index. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(9):1369–76. PMID: 15266038. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1D479. [PubMed: 15266038] [CrossRef]

25.Food and Drug Administration (FDA). National Drug Code Directory. 2017; https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/national-drug-code-directory. Accessed August 16, 2019.

26.National Library of Medicine (NLM). RxNorm. Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/rxnorm/. Accessed June 10, 2019.

27.World Health Organization (WHO). The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System with Defined Daily Doses (ATC/DDD). http://www.who.int/classifications/atcddd/en/. Accessed August 16, 2019.

28.(AMA) AMA. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT). https://www.ama-assn.org/amaone/cpt-current-procedural-terminology. Accessed August 16, 2019.

29.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). HCPCS – General Information. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/MedHCPCSGenInfo/index.html. Accessed August 16, 2019.

30.Regenstrief Institute. LOINC. https://loinc.org/. Accessed June 10, 2019.

31.Townsend N, Rutter H, Foster C. Improvements in the data quality of a national BMI measuring programme. Int J Obes (Lond). 2015;39(9):1429–31. PMID: 25869597. DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2015.53. [PubMed: 25869597] [CrossRef]

32.National Institute of Health (NIH). Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). http://www.healthmeasures.net. Accessed August 16, 2019.

33.Committee on the Recommended Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures for Electronic Health Records; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine. Capturing Social and Behavioral Domains and Measures in Electronic Health Records: Phase 2. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Jan 8. Abstract. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK269341/. Accessed August 16, 2019. [PubMed: 25590118]

34.Adler NE, Stead WW. Patients in context-EHR capture of social and behavioral determinants of health. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):698–701. PMID: 25693009. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1413945. [PubMed: 25693009] [CrossRef]

35.Education USDo. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html. Accessed August 16, 2019.

36.Workman TA. Engaging Patients in Information Sharing and Data Collection: The Role of Patient-Powered Registries and Research Networks. AHRQ Community Forum White Paper. AHRQ Publication No. 13-EHC124-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2013. [PubMed: 24156118]

37.Health Level Seven (HL7). Mobile Health. http://www.hl7.org/Special/committees/mobile/. Accessed August 16, 2019.

38.Arora S, Yttri J, Nilse W. Privacy and Security in Mobile Health (mHealth) Research. Alcohol Res. 2014;36(1):143–51. PMID: 26259009. [PMC free article: PMC4432854] [PubMed: 26259009]

39.Dreyer NA, Blackburn S, Hliva V, et al. Balancing the Interests of Patient Data Protection and Medication Safety Monitoring in a Public-Private Partnership. JMIR Med Inform. 2015;3(2). PMID: 25881627. DOI: 10.2196/medinform.3937. [PMC free article: PMC4414957] [PubMed: 25881627] [CrossRef]

40.Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759–69. PMID: 18474969. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759. [PubMed: 18474969] [CrossRef]

41.Improvement IfH. The IHI Triple Aim. http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/TripleAim/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 16, 2019.

42.Eggleston E, Klompas M. Rational Use of Electronic Health Records for Diabetes Population Management. Current Diabetes Reports. 2014;14(4):479. PMID: 24615333. DOI: 10.1007/s11892-014-0479-z. [PubMed: 24615333] [CrossRef]

43.Duncan I. Healthcare Risk Adjustment and Predictive Modeling. Winsted, CT: ACTEX Publications; 2011.

44.Kharrazi H, Weiner JP. IT-enabled Community Health Interventions: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2014;2(3):1117. PMID: 25848627. DOI: 10.13063/2327-9214.1117. [PMC free article: PMC4371402] [PubMed: 25848627] [CrossRef]

45.Kharrazi H, Lasser EC, Yasnoff WA, et al. A proposed national research and development agenda for population health informatics: summary recommendations from a national expert workshop. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):2–12. PMID: 27018264. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv210. [PMC free article: PMC5201177] [PubMed: 27018264] [CrossRef]

46.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/PQRS/Downloads/PQRS_OverviewFactSheet_2013_08_06.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2019.

47.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Comprehensive Inventory of Research Networks. https://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/research-support-funding-opportunities/research-support-funding/comprehensive. Accessed August 16, 2019.

48.Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC). The CDISC Healthcare Link Initiative. https://www.cdisc.org/system/files/all/standard_category/application/pdf/healthcare_link_chapter.pdf. Accessed August 16, 2019.

49.Clinical Information Modeling Initiative (CIMI). CIMI Reference Model. https://wiki.hl7.org/index.php?title=Proposed_CIMI_Reference_Model. Accessed August 16, 2019.

50.Sentinel Common Data Model. https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sentinel/data/distributed-database-common-data-model/sentinel-common-data-model. Accessed June 10, 2019, 2018.

51.Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI). https://www.ohdsi.org/. Accessed June 10, 2019.

52.Hripcsak G, Albers DJ. Next-generation phenotyping of electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):117–21. PMID: 22955496. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001145. [PMC free article: PMC3555337] [PubMed: 22955496] [CrossRef]

53.Dreyer NA, Rodriguez AM. The fast route to evidence development for value in healthcare. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32(10):1697–700. PMID: 27314301. DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1203768. [PubMed: 27314301] [CrossRef]

54.Arts DG, De Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ. Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(6):600–11. PMID: 12386111. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.m1087. [PMC free article: PMC349377] [PubMed: 12386111] [CrossRef]

55.Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 (2013). [PubMed: 23476971]

56.The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC). Health Information Exchange Governance. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/governancehitweekpresentation.pdf. Accessed August 16, 2019.

57.Fiks A, Grundmeier R, Steffes J. Comparative Effectiveness Research Through a Collaborative Electronic Reporting Consortium. Pediatrics. 2015;136(1):e215–24. PMID: 26101357. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2015-0673. [PubMed: 26101357] [CrossRef]

58.The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). Distributed Population Queries. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/052412_hitsc_queryhealthpresentation.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2019.

59.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community Health Assessments and Health Improvement Plans. https://www.cdc.gov/publichealthgateway/cha/plan.html. Accessed August 16, 2019.

60.S&I Framework. Structured Data Capture Initiative. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/scientific-initiatives/pcor/research-evaluation/structured-data-capture-sdc. Accessed August 19, 2019.

61.Lombardo JS, Burkom H, Pavlin J. ESSENCE II and the framework for evaluating syndromic surveillance systems. MMWR Suppl. 2004;53:159–65. PMID: 15714646. [PubMed: 15714646]

62.Massachusetts eHealth Institute. PopMedNet: Distributed Data Network. http://mehi.masstech.org/programs/past-programs/mdphnet-project/popmednet-distributed-data-network. Accessed August 16, 2019.

63.New York State Department of Health. Population Health Registry. https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/redesign/ehr/registry/phr.htm. Accessed August 19, 2019.

64.New York City Health Department. The NYC Macroscope. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/data/health-tools/nycmacroscope.page. Accessed August 16, 2019.

65.Pathak J, Kho AN, Denny JC. Electronic health records-driven phenotyping: challenges, recent advances, and perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e2):e206–11. PMID: 24302669. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002428. [PMC free article: PMC3861925] [PubMed: 24302669] [CrossRef]

66.Richesson RL, Hammond WE, Nahm M, et al. Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH Health Care Systems Collaboratory. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e2):e226–31. PMID: 23956018. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001926. [PMC free article: PMC3861929] [PubMed: 23956018] [CrossRef]

67.Ford E, Carroll JA, Smith HE, et al. Extracting information from the text of electronic medical records to improve case detection: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(5):1007–15. PMID: 26911811. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocv180. [PMC free article: PMC4997034] [PubMed: 26911811] [CrossRef]

68.Benson T. Principles of Health Interoperability HL7 and SNOMED. Health Informatics. 2010.

69.Samarath A, Sorace J, Patel V. Measurement of Interoperable Electronic Health Care Records Utilization. US Department of Health and Human Services https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/measurement-interoperable-electronic-health-care-records-utilization. Accessed August 16, 2019.

70.Swain M, Charles D, Patel V, et al. Health Information Exchange Among U.S. Non-federal Acute Care Hospitals: 2008–2014. ONC Data Brief. 2014(17).

71.Kharrazi H, Chi W, Chang H-Y, et al. Comparing Population-based Risk-stratification Model Performance Using Demographic, Diagnosis and Medication Data Extracted From Outpatient Electronic Health Records Versus Administrative Claims. Medical Care. 2017;55(8):789–96. PMID: 28598890. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000754. [PubMed: 28598890] [CrossRef]

72.Frank L. Epidemiology. When an Entire Country Is a Cohort. Science. 2000;287(5462):2398–9. PMID: 10766613. DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2398. [PubMed: 10766613] [CrossRef]

73.Krueger WS, Anthony MS, Saltus CW, et al. Evaluating the Safety of Medication Exposures During Pregnancy: A Case Study of Study Designs and Data Sources in Multiple Sclerosis. Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2017;4(3):139–49. PMID: 28756575. DOI: 10.1007/s40801-017-0114-9. [PMC free article: PMC5567459] [PubMed: 28756575] [CrossRef]

74.Raungaard B, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, et al. Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9977):1527–35. PMID: 25601789. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61794-3. [PubMed: 25601789] [CrossRef]

75.Frobert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(17):1587–97. PMID: 23991656. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1308789. [PubMed: 23991656] [CrossRef]

76.Shurlock B. Randomization Within Quality Registries: A Cost-Effective Complement to Classical Randomized Trials. European heart journal. 2014;35(1):1–2. PMID: 24382633. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht493. [PubMed: 24382633] [CrossRef]

77.Herrett E, Gallagher AM, Bhaskaran K, et al. Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(3):827–36. PMID: 26050254. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv098. [PMC free article: PMC4521131] [PubMed: 26050254] [CrossRef]

78.Pharmo Record Linkage System. https://www.pharmo.nl/. Accessed August 16, 2019.

79.Coloma PM, Schuemie MJ, Trifiro G, et al. Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large-scale drug safety monitoring: the EU-ADR Project. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(1):1–11. PMID: 21182150. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2053. [PubMed: 21182150] [CrossRef]

80.Avillach P, Coloma PM, Gini R, et al. Harmonization process for the identification of medical events in eight European healthcare databases: the experience from the EU-ADR project. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(1):184–92. PMID: 22955495. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000933. [PMC free article: PMC3555316] [PubMed: 22955495] [CrossRef]

81.Alvarez-Madrazo S, McTaggart S, Nangle C, et al. Data Resource Profile: The Scottish National Prescribing Information System (PIS). Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(3):714–5f. PMID: 27165758. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw060. [PMC free article: PMC5005947] [PubMed: 27165758] [CrossRef]

82.The German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database. https://www.bips-institut.de/en/research/research-infrastructures/gepard.html. Accessed August 16, 2019.

83.Boudemaghe T, Belhadj I. Data Resource Profile: The French National Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Set Database (PMSI). Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):392-d. PMID: 28168290. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw359. [PubMed: 28168290] [CrossRef]

84.Bolíbar B, Fina Avilés F, Morros R, et al. [SIDIAP Database: Electronic Clinical Records in Primary Care as a Source of Information for Epidemiologic Research]. Medicina Clínica. 2012;138(14):617–21. [PubMed: 22444996]

85.Garies S, Birtwhistle R, Drummond N, et al. Data Resource Profile: National electronic medical record data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(4):1091–2f. PMID: 28338877. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw248. [PubMed: 28338877] [CrossRef]

86.Cheol Seong S, Kim Y-Y, Khang Y-H, et al. Data Resource Profile: The National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2016;46(3):799–800. [PMC free article: PMC5837262] [PubMed: 27794523]

87.Chen Y-C, Yeh H-Y, Wu J-C, et al. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database: Administrative Health Care Database as Study Object in Bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 2011;86(2):365–80.

88.Health Level 7 (HL7). Welcome to FHIR. 2017; https://www.hl7.org/fhir/. Accessed June 10, 2019.

89.Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Stage 3 Program Requirements for Providers Attesting to their State’s Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. Regulations and Guidance 2016; https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Stage3Medicaid_Require.html. Accessed August 16, 2019.

90.Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). MACRA: Delivery System Reform Medicare Payment Reform. 2017; https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality-initiatives-patient-assessment-instruments/value-based-programs/macra-mips-and-apms/macra-mips-and-apms.html. Accessed June 11, 2019.

91.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Clinical Data Repositories – OHRP Correspondence. 2015; https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/june-25-2015-letter-to-robert-portman/index.html. Accessed August 16, 2019.