Suchergebnisse

Introduction: Increasingly, the label "data trust" is being applied to repeatable mechanisms or approaches to sharing data in a timely, fair, safe and equitable way. However, there is a gap in terms of practical guidance about how to establish and operate a data trust.

Aim and Approach: In December 2019, the Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence convened a working meeting of 19 people representing 15 Canadian organizations/initiatives involved in data sharing, most of which focus on public sector health data. The objective was to identify essential requirements for the establishment and operation of data trusts. Preliminary findings were presented during the meeting then refined as participants and co-authors identified relevant literature and contributed to this manuscript.

Results: Twelve (12) minimum specification requirements ("min specs") for data trusts were identified. The foundational min spec is that data trusts must meet all legal requirements, including legal authority to collect, hold or share data. In addition, there was agreement that data trusts must have (i) an accountable governing body which ensures the data trust advances its stated purpose and is transparent, (ii) comprehensive data management including responsible parties and clear processes for the collection, storage, access, disclosure and use of data, (iii) training and accountability requirements for all data users and (iv) ongoing public and stakeholder engagement.
Conclusion / Implications: Based on a review of the literature and advice from participants from 15 Canadian organizations/initiatives, practical guidance in the form of twelve min specs for data trusts were agreed on. Public engagement and continued exchange of insights and experience is recommended on this evolving topic.

IntroductionHealth care systems have faced unprecedented challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Access to timely population-based data has been vital to informing public health policy and practice.
MethodsWe describe how ICES, an independent not-for-profit research and analytic institute in Ontario, Canada, pivoted existing research infrastructure and engaged health system stakeholders to provide near real-time population-based data and analytics to support Ontario's COVID-19 pandemic response.
ResultsSince April 2020, ICES provided the Ontario COVID-19 Provincial Command Table and public health partners with regular and ad hoc reports on SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 vaccine coverage. These reports: 1) helped identify congregate care/shared living settings that needed testing and prevention efforts early in the pandemic; 2) provided early indications of inequities in testing and infection in marginalized neighbourhoods, including areas with higher proportions of immigrants and visible minorities; 3) identified areas with high test positivity, which helped Public Health Units target and evaluate prevention efforts; and 4) contributed to altering the province's COVID-19 vaccine roll-out strategy to target high-risk neighbourhoods and helping Public Health Units and community organizations plan local vaccination programs. In addition, ICES is a key component of the Ontario Health Data Platform, which provides scientists with data access to conduct COVID-19 research and analyses.
Discussion and ConclusionICES was well-positioned to provide rapid analyses for decision-makers to respond to the evolving public health emergency, and continues to contribute to Ontario's pandemic response by providing timely, relevant reports to health system stakeholders and facilitating data access for externally-funded COVID-19 research.

IntroductionAround the world, many organisations are working on ways to increase the use, sharing, and reuse of person-level data for research, evaluation, planning, and innovation while ensuring that data are secure and privacy is protected. As a contribution to broader efforts to improve data governance and management, in 2020 members of our team published 12 minimum specification essential requirements (min specs) to provide practical guidance for organisations establishing or operating data trusts and other forms of data infrastructure.
Approach and AimsWe convened an international team, consisting mostly of participants from Canada and the United States of America, to test and refine the original 12 min specs. Twenty-three (23) data-focused organisations and initiatives recorded the various ways they address the min specs. Sub-teams analysed the results, used the findings to make improvements to the min specs, and identified materials to support organisations/initiatives in addressing the min specs.
ResultsAnalyses and discussion led to an updated set of 15 min specs covering five categories: one min spec for Legal, five for Governance, four for Management, two for Data Users, and three for Stakeholder & Public Engagement. Multiple changes were made to make the min specs language more technically complete and precise. The updated set of 15 min specs has been integrated into a Canadian national standard that, to our knowledge, is the first to include requirements for public engagement and Indigenous Data Sovereignty.
ConclusionsThe testing and refinement of the min specs led to significant additions and improvements. The min specs helped the 23 organisations/initiatives involved in this project communicate and compare how they achieve responsible and trustworthy data governance and management. By extension, the min specs, and the Canadian national standard based on them, are likely to be useful for other data-focused organisations and initiatives.

Background: In Canada, 30%-60% of patients presenting to emergency departments are ambulatory. This category has been labeled as a source of emergency department overuse. Acting on the presumption that primary care practices and walk-in clinics offer equivalent care at a lower cost, governments have invested massively in improving access to these alternative settings in the hope that patients would present there instead when possible, thereby reducing the load on emergency departments. Data in support of this approach remain scarce and equivocal. Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the value of care received in emergency departments, walk-in clinics, and primary care practices by ambulatory patients with upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, otitis media, tonsillitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis, influenza-like illness, pneumonia, acute asthma, or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort study will be performed in Ontario and Québec. In phase 1, a time-driven activity-based costing method will be applied at each of the 15 study sites. This method uses time as a cost driver to allocate direct costs (eg, medication), consumable expenditures (eg, needles), overhead costs (eg, building maintenance), and physician charges to patient care. Thus, the cost of a care episode will be proportional to the time spent receiving the care. At the end of this phase, a list of care process costs will be generated and used to calculate the cost of each consultation during phase 2, in which a prospective cohort of patients will be monitored to compare the care received in each setting. Patients aged 18 years and older, ambulatory throughout the care episode, and discharged to home with one of the aforementioned targeted diagnoses will be considered. The estimated sample size is 1485 patients. The 3 types of care settings will be compared on the basis of primary outcomes in terms of the proportion of return visits to any site 3 and 7 days after the initial visit and the mean cost of care. The secondary outcomes measured will include scores on patient-reported outcome and experience measures and mean costs borne wholly by patients. We will use multilevel generalized linear models to compare the care settings and an overlap weights approach to adjust for confounding factors related to age, sex, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, registration with a family physician, socioeconomic status, and severity of illness. Results: Phase 1 will begin in 2021 and phase 2, in 2023. The results will be available in 2025. Conclusions: The end point of our program will be for deciders, patients, and care providers to be able to determine the most appropriate care setting for the management of ambulatory emergency respiratory conditions, based on the quality and cost of care associated with each alternative.