Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(02): 383-390
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729164
Research Article

Infobuttons for Genomic Medicine: Requirements and Barriers

Luke V. Rasmussen
1   Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United Sates
,
John J. Connolly
2   The Center for Applied Genomics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United Sates
,
Guilherme Del Fiol
3   Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United Sates
,
Robert R. Freimuth
4   Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United Sates
,
Douglas B. Pet
5   Department of Neurology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United Sates
,
Josh F. Peterson
6   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, United Sates
,
Brian H. Shirts
7   Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United Sates
,
Justin B. Starren
1   Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United Sates
,
Marc S. Williams
8   Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania, United Sates
,
Nephi Walton
8   Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania, United Sates
9   Intermountain Precision Genomics, Intermountain Healthcare, St George, Utah, United Sates
,
Casey Overby Taylor
8   Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania, United Sates
10   Department of Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United Sates
› Author Affiliations Funding This phase of the eMERGE network was initiated and funded by the NHGRI through the following grants: U01HG008657 (Group Health Cooperative/University of Washington); U01HG008685 (Brigham and Women's Hospital); U01HG008672 (Vanderbilt University Medical Center); U01HG008666 (Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center); U01HG006379 (Mayo Clinic); U01HG008679 (Geisinger Clinic); U01HG008680 (Columbia University Health Sciences); U01HG008684 (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia); U01HG008673 (Northwestern University); U01HG008701 (Vanderbilt University Medical Center serving as the Coordinating Center); U01HG008676 (Partners Healthcare/Broad Institute); U01HG008664 (Baylor College of Medicine); and U54MD007593 (Meharry Medical College).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The study aimed to understand potential barriers to the adoption of health information technology projects that are released as free and open source software (FOSS).

Methods We conducted a survey of research consortia participants engaged in genomic medicine implementation to assess perceived institutional barriers to the adoption of three systems: ClinGen electronic health record (EHR) Toolkit, DocUBuild, and MyResults.org. The survey included eight barriers from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), with additional barriers identified from a qualitative analysis of open-ended responses.

Results We analyzed responses from 24 research consortia participants from 18 institutions. In total, 14 categories of perceived barriers were evaluated, which were consistent with other observed barriers to FOSS adoption. The most frequent perceived barriers included lack of adaptability of the system, lack of institutional priority to implement, lack of trialability, lack of advantage of alternative systems, and complexity.

Conclusion In addition to understanding potential barriers, we recommend some strategies to address them (where possible), including considerations for genomic medicine. Overall, FOSS developers need to ensure systems are easy to trial and implement and need to clearly articulate benefits of their systems, especially when alternatives exist. Institutional champions will remain a critical component to prioritizing genomic medicine projects.

Keywords

facilitators and barriers - clinical decision support - genetics - infobuttons - open source

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects Protections

The work described was deemed nonhuman subjects research by the Johns Hopkins University Institutional Review Board.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 23 December 2020

Accepted: 12 March 2021

Article published online:
12 May 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Petrov D, Obwegeser N. Adoption barriers of open-source software. Syst Rev 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cresswell K, Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 (05) e73-e86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Paton C, Karopka T. The role of free/Libre and open source software in learning health systems. Yearb Med Inform 2017; 26 (01) 53-58
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bioconductor. Bioconductor - Home. Published 2020. Accessed November 11, 2020 at: https://www.bioconductor.org/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Herr TM, Bielinski SJ, Bottinger E. et al. Practical considerations in genomic decision support: the eMERGE experience. J Pathol Inform 2015; 6: 50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Cimino JJ, Elhanan G, Zeng Q. Supporting infobuttons with terminological knowledge. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp 1997; 528-532
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Heale BS, Overby CL, Del Fiol G. et al. Integrating genomic resources with electronic health records using the HL7 Infobutton standard. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (03) 817-831
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Del Fiol G, Curtis C, Cimino JJ. et al. Disseminating context-specific access to online knowledge resources within electronic health record systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 2013; 192: 672-676
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [computer program]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed 2018 at: https://www.gbif.org/tool/81287/r-a-language-and-environment-for-statistical-computing
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 StatTag [computer program]. Chicago, Illinois, United States: Galter Health Sciences Library; 2016. Available at: https://sites.northwestern.edu/stattag/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Walton NA, Johnson DK, Person TN, Reynolds JC, Williams MS. Pilot implementation of clinical genomic data into the native electronic health record: challenges of scalability. ACI Open. 2020; 04 (02) e162-e166
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lau-Min KS, Asher SB, Chen J. et al. Real-world integration of genomic data into the electronic health record: the PennChart Genomics Initiative. Genet Med 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Manage Inf Syst Q 2003; 27 (03) 425-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rasmussen LV, Overby CL, Connolly J. et al. Practical considerations for implementing genomic information resources. Experiences from eMERGE and CSER. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (03) 870-882
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Bate P, Macfarlane F, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion and dissemination. In: Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature Review. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2005
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (e1(: e9-e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chruściel-Nogalska M, Smektała T, Tutak M, Sporniak-Tutak K, Olszewski R. Open-source software in dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2017; 33 (04) 487-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Silva LB, Jimenez RC, Blomberg N, Luis Oliveira J. General guidelines for biomedical software development. F1000 Res 2017; 6: 273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD. et al; ClinGen. ClinGen--the clinical genome resource. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (23) 2235-2242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Benson M. et al. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res 2018; 46 (D1): D1062-D1067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Payne T, Fellner J, Dugowson C, Liebovitz D, Fletcher G. Use of more than one electronic medical record system within a single health care organization. Appl Clin Inform 2012; 3 (04) 462-474
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mandel JC, Kreda DA, Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Ramoni RB. SMART on FHIR: a standards-based, interoperable apps platform for electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (05) 899-908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dolin RH, Boxwala A, Shalaby J. A pharmacogenomics clinical decision support service based on FHIR and CDS hooks. Methods Inf Med 2018; 57 (S 02): e115-e123
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar