16 June 2017
Research using de-identified routine health data can provide unique insights to improve population health. England has a wealth of routine health data from sources such as electronic records and public health surveillance systems. However, due to challenges in linking and sharing these datasets their potential to enable powerful, efficient research that informs health policy and services is not being realised. How can we gain the greatest benefits to society from the collection of routine health data?
Healthcare generates large amounts of routine data for clinical and administrative purposes in settings such as hospitals, laboratories, GP practices and pharmacies.
The storage and flows of routine health data are complex. Electronic health records capture data on diagnoses, investigations, treatments and referrals for clinical management. Public health surveillance systems help to monitor outbreaks of infectious diseases, protect population health and inform service planning. Other routine data sources include birth and death registrations, disease registries and national screening programmes.
As routine health data are not primarily collected for research, linkage between several different data sources might be needed in order to improve data power and quality to answer particular health research questions.
Routine health datasets are used to monitor trends in diseases over time and between countries, regions or healthcare settings and to inform health intervention strategies.
In the area of infectious diseases, research using routine health datasets might involve monitoring the number of cases of HIV and TB, and investigating risk factors for acquiring infections or complications after infection. Other uses include evaluating the coverage and effectiveness of screening, vaccination or treatment programmes, and monitoring the use of healthcare services associated with infections.
Advantages to using de-identified routine health datasets for research include their large size and real world nature. Information is captured about groups who are typically under-represented in research studies, such as older people with multiple medical problems and vulnerable groups such as migrants or homeless people. The ability to link between datasets further improves the accuracy and completeness of data available for research. Also, using existing data minimises the cost and logistical challenges of data collection.
Semi-structured interviews with data users identified the following challenges:
Some organisations that collect and collate routine health data do not prioritise external research and may lack the capacity to support it, especially if research is not a core organisational function. There may also be concerns about the legitimacy of data sharing, with issues of competition, control and desire for reciprocity further hampering research.
Data access models vary across datasets and organisations. In some cases, no information is available to external researchers about the datasets collected or the costs and processes needed to access them. There may be no clear point of contact and data access may rely upon personal relationships.
Appropriate legal, ethical and governance frameworks are essential to protect routine health data. However, risk averse practices in some organisations may result in complex sets of permissions needed to access routine data. As more datasets are linked together, access procedures become more complicated and time-consuming and may be disproportionate to the risks involved.
Substantial work is needed to clean, transform and manipulate routine health data before analysis can begin. Analysing and interpreting routine health data is not straightforward and requires good subject, epidemiological and technical expertise. Interpretation of research results may be hindered by opaque data linkage processes. Lack of sharing of research methods and tools can result in duplicated efforts.
There are fewer barriers to accessing national Scottish routine datasets for research. While this is helped by having a smaller population size and longer-term stability and investment in data infrastructure, other features of the Scottish system that facilitate data linkage and sharing for research are:
The electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS), which offers tailored support for researchers using routine health data. This includes a research co-ordinator who assists with study design, approvals and data access.
A user-friendly website describing the national datasets available. Further detailed information about the variables included is available on request.
A streamlined approvals process through the Public Benefit and Privacy Panel (PBPP), which scrutinises all research using NHS-derived data in Scotland.
Use of the Community Health Index (CHI) number as an identifier across multiple routine datasets which reduces technical barriers to data linkage.
Ultimately, we should aim to maximise societal benefits gained from the collection of routine health data in England. These include facilitating the conduct of research using routine data to inform improvements to health and healthcare systems.
Enabling such research involves creating structures for secure data linkage and sharing that operate within clear legal and information governance frameworks, while being transparent and responsive to user needs. As the volume of routine health data continues to grow, it is imperative that barriers to access and use do not limit its utility for public benefit.
Policymakers within governments and public organisations concerned with health data should:
These recommendations are described in more detail in a forthcoming PHG Foundation report to be published in July 2017.
To be informed of publication of the forthcoming report, please sign up to our news alerts here.