Advertisement

Probabilistic master lists: integration of patient records from different databases when unique patient identifier is missing

Article
  • 83 Downloads

Abstract

We show how Bayesian probability models can be used to integrate two databases, one of which does not have a key for uniquely identifying clients (e.g., social security number or medical record number). The analyst selects a set of imperfect identifiers (last visit diagnosis, first name, etc.). The algorithm assesses the likelihood ratio associated with the identifier from the database of known cases. It estimates the probability that two records belong to the same client from the likelihood ratios. As it proceeds in examining various identifiers, it accounts for inter-dependencies among them by allowing overlapping and redundant identifiers to be used. We test that the procedure is effective by examining data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Population Characteristics data set, a publicly available data set. We randomly selected 1,000 cases for training data set—these constituted the known cases. The algorithm was used to identify if 100 cases not in the training data set would be misclassified in terms of being a case in the training set or a new case. With 12 fields as identifiers, all 100 cases were correctly classified as new cases. We also selected 100 known cases from the training set and asked the algorithm to classify these cases. Again, all 100 cases were correctly classified. Less accurate results were obtained when the training data set was too small (e.g., less than 100 records) or the number of fields used as identifiers was too small (e.g., less than seven fields). In a test of performance of the algorithm, when the ratio of testing to training data set exceeds 4 to 1, the accuracy of the algorithm exceeded 90% of cases. As the ratio increases, the accuracy of algorithm improves further. These data suggest the accuracy of our automated and mathematical procedure to merge data from two different data sets without the presence of a unique identifier. The algorithm uses imperfect and overlapping clues to re-identify cases from information not typically considered to be a patient identifier.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Statistical inference Bayesian probability models Data integration Cleaning databases Patient identification Re-identification Master list of patients 

References

  1. 1.
    Achard F, Vaysseix G, Barillot E (2001) XML, bioinformatics and data integration. Bioinformatics 17(2):115–125, (Feb)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Beebe C, et al (2001) The HL7 clinical document architecture. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8:552–569Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schadow G, Russler DC, Mead CN, McDonald CJ (2000) Integrating medical information and knowledge in the HL7 RIM. Proceedings of American Medical Information Association Symposium, pp 764–768Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Electronic Health Record (EHR) System Functional Model. Health level seven. http://www.hl7.org/ehr/index.asp. Cited 1 Oct 2005
  5. 5.
    JAMIA Board of Directors (1994) Standards for medical identifiers, codes and messages needed to create an efficient computer-stored medical record. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1:1–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barthell EN, Coonan K, Finnell J, Pollock D, Cochrane D (2004) Disparate systems, disparate data: integration, interfaces, and standards in emergency medicine information technology. Acad. Emerg Med 11(11):1142–1148, (November 1)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Therrell BL Jr (2003) Data integration and warehousing: coordination between newborn screening and related public health programs. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 34(Suppl 3):63–68Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arellano MG, Weber GI (1998) Issues in identification and linkage of patient records across an integrated delivery system. J Healthc Inf Manag 12(3):43–52, FallGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quantin C, Binquet C, Bourquard K, Pattisina R, Gouyon-Cornet B, Ferdynus C, Gouyon JB, Allaert FA (2004) A peculiar aspect of patients’ safety: the discriminating power of identifiers for record linkage. Stud Health Technol Inform 103:400–406Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quantin C, Binquet C, Bourquard K, Pattisina R, Gouyon-Cornet B, Ferdynus C, Gouyon JB, Francois-Andre A (2004) Which are the best identifiers for record linkage? Med Inform Internet Med 29(3–4):221–227, (Sep–Dec)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fenna D (1984) Phonetic reduction of names. Comput Programs Biomed 19(1):31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mortimer JY, Salathiel JA (1995) ‘Soundex’ codes of surnames provide confidentiality and accuracy in a national HIV database. CDR Rev 5(12):R183–R186, Nov 10Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Searls DB (2003) Data integration—connecting the dots. Nat Biotechnol 21(8):844–845, AugCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quantin C, Bouzelat H, Dusserre L (1997) A computerized record hash coding and linkage procedure to warrant epidemiological follow-up data security. Stud Health Technol Inform 43(Pt A):339–342Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roos LL, Wajda A (1991) Record linkage strategies. Part I: estimating information and evaluating approaches. Methods Inf Med 30(2):117–123, (Apr)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gomatam S, Carter R, Ariet M, Mitchell G (2002) An empirical comparison of record linkage procedures. Stat Med 21(10):1485–1496, (May 30)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quantin C, Binquet C, Allaert FA, Cornet B, Pattisina R, Leteuff G, Ferdynus C, Gouyon JB (2005) Decision analysis for the assessment of a record linkage procedure: application to a perinatal network. Methods Inf Med 44(1):72–79Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dean JM, Vernon DD, Cook L, Nechodom P, Reading J, Suruda A (2001) Probabilistic linkage of computerized ambulance and inpatient hospital discharge records: a potential tool for evaluation of emergency medical services. Ann Emerg Med 37(6):616–626, (Jun)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newcombe HB, Kennedy YJM, Axford SJ, James AP. Automatic linkage of vital records. Science 150 (1959):954–959Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blakely T, Salmond C (2002) Probabilistic record linkage and a method to calculate the positive predictive value. Int J Epidemiol 31(6):1246–1252, (PMID: 12540730, Dec)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fellegi IF, Sunter AB (1969) A theory for record linkage. J Am Stat Assoc 64:1183–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jaro MA (1989) Advances in record linkage methodology as applied to matching the 1985 census of Tampa Florida. J Am Stat Assoc 84:414–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edwards AWF (1974) The history of likelihood. Int Stat Rev 42:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher RA (1956) Statistical methods and scientific inference. (2nd edn. rev. 1959), Hafner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bayes T (1763) An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos Trans of R Soc 3:370–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Norusis MJ, Jacquez JA (1975) Diagnosis. I. Symptom non-independence in mathematical models for diagnosis. Comput Biomed Res 8:156–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gammerman A, Thatcher AR (1991) Bayesian diagnostic probabilities without assuming independence of symptoms. Methods Inf Med 30:15–22Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ohmann C, Yang Q, Kunneke M, Stoltzing H, Thon K, Lorenz W (1988) Bayes theorem and conditional dependence of symptoms: different models applied to data of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods Inf Med 27:73–83Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eisenstein EL, Alemi F (1994) An evaluation of factors influencing Bayesian learning systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1(3):272–284Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen SB (2003) Design strategies and innovations in the medical expenditure panel survey. Med Care 41(7 Suppl):III5–III12, (Jul)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salvador M, Vang J, Castro M, Diab T (2002) Correlating a medical records databases with Bayesian classification. Prepared for scientific databases (CSI 710) Class FallGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Nursing and Health SciencesGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations