3 ms·
For someone who never looked into the complexities of clinical trials, I thought that was a detailed and informative answer. It seems the key point to take awa
by Anthony-G 6y ago
For someone who never looked into the complexities of clinical trials, I thought that was a detailed and informative answer. It seems the key point to take away is, “The amount of noise in human clinical data can defy belief if you haven’t seen it in person”. :)
- pfdietz 6y agoA truth worth repeating!
- zxexz 6y agoI’ve been working in this space for a while now, and this still blows my mind. Patient-reported data is noisy, doctor’s notes infamously confusing and inconsistent in formatting. Even fields you can pull from the health system’s EHR directly will be in disparate formats across different hospitals, or even different departments. It would be easy to say it all should be standardized (and it should, for the most part), but workflow considerations keep standards from being adopted. What a data standard for oncology data would look like is very different from what one developed for ophthalmology. Not to mention UX - if you’re a doctor seeing 20 patients a day, an extra 15 minutes of data entry per patient could bring that number down to 15 patients or less. UX and data standards really does have a direct link to patient outcomes in healthcare!
- yread 6y agoIndeed, we had to recently work with 500k patients' appointments. Database table Appointment had a date and "actually met" flag - sounds simple enough, right? Nope - doctors were "meeting" dead people, different departments had different rules about whether phone calls were included and what did the "actually met" flag actually mean.