Jeffrey Brown

Mr. Jeffrey Brown


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

32Years (1995-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 July 2014 in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RFRachael L Fleurence
Rachael L Fleurence
LCLesley H Curtis
Lesley H Curtis
RCRobert M Califf
Robert M Califf
RPRichard Platt
Richard Platt
JSJ. V. Selby
J. V. Selby
JBJeffrey Brown
Jeffrey Brown
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has launched PCORnet, a major initiative to support an effective, sustainable national resear

11 September 2016 in eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes)
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MKMichael G. Kahn
Michael G. Kahn
Tiffany Jean Lee CallahanTiffany Jean Lee Callahan
Tiffany Jean Lee Callahan
JBJuliana Barnard
Juliana Barnard
ABAlan E. Bauck
Alan E. Bauck
JBJeffrey Brown
Jeffrey Brown
LSLisa Schilling
Lisa Schilling
Objective: Harmonized data quality (DQ) assessment terms, methods, and reporting practices can establish a common understanding of the strengths and limitations of electronic health record (EHR) data for operational analytics, quality improvement, and research. Existing published DQ terms were harmonized to a comprehensive unified terminology with definitions and examples and organized into a conceptual framework to support a common approach to defining whether EHR data is ‘fit’ for specific uses.Materials and Methods: DQ publications, informatics and analytics experts, managers of established DQ programs, and operational manuals from several mature EHR-based research networks were reviewed to identify potential DQ terms and categories. Two face-to-face stakeholder meetings were used to vet an initial set of DQ terms and definitions that were grouped into an overall conceptual framework. Feedback received from data producers and users was used to construct a draft set of harmonized DQ terms and categories. Multiple rounds of iterative refinement resulted in a set of terms and organizing framework consisting of DQ categories, subcategories, terms, definitions, and examples. The harmonized terminology and logical framework’s inclusiveness was evaluated against ten published DQ terminologies.Results: Existing DQ terms were harmonized and organized into a framework by defining three DQ categories: (1) Conformance (2) Completeness and (3) Plausibility and two DQ assessment contexts: (1) Verification and (2) Validation. Conformance and Plausibility categories were further divided into subcategories. Each category and subcategory was defined with respect to whether the data may be verified with organizational data, or validated against an accepted gold standard, depending on proposed context and uses. The coverage of the harmonized DQ terminology was validated by successfully aligning to multiple published DQ terminologies.Discussion: Existing DQ concepts, community input, and expert review informed the development of a distinct set of terms, organized into categories and subcategories. The resulting DQ terms successfully encompassed a wide range of disparate DQ terminologies. Operational definitions were developed to provide guidance for implementing DQ assessment procedures. The resulting structure is an inclusive DQ framework for standardizing DQ assessment and reporting. While our analysis focused on the DQ issues often found in EHR data, the new terminology may be applicable to a wide range of electronic health data such as administrative, research, and patient-reported data.Conclusion: A consistent, common DQ terminology, organized into a logical framework, is an initial step in enabling data owners and users, patients, and policy makers to evaluate and communicate data quality findings in a well-defined manner with a shared vocabulary. Future work will leverage the framework and terminology to develop reusable data quality assessment and reporting methods.

23 October 2014 in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CFCharles Friedman
Charles Friedman
JRJoshua Rubin
Joshua Rubin
JBJeffrey Brown
Jeffrey Brown
MBMelinda Buntin
Melinda Buntin
MCMilton Corn
Milton Corn
DHDouglas Van Houweling
Douglas Van Houweling
Objective The capability to share data, and harness its potential to generate knowledge rapidly and inform decisions, can have transformative effects that improve health. The infrastructure to achieve this goal at scale—marrying technology, process, and policy—is commonly referred to as the Learning Health System (LHS). Achieving an LHS raises numerous scientific challenges. Materials and methods The National Science Foundation convened an invitational workshop to identify the fundamental scientific and engineering research challenges to achieving a national-scale LHS. The workshop was planned by a 12-member committee and ultimately engaged 45 prominent researchers spanning multiple disciplines over 2 days in Washington, DC on 11–12 April 2013. Results The workshop participants collectively identified 106 research questions organized around four system-level requirements that a high-functioning LHS must satisfy. The workshop participants also identified a new cross-disciplinary integrative science of cyber-social ecosystems that will be required to address these challenges. Conclusions The intellectual merit and potential broad impacts of the innovations that will be driven by investments in an LHS are of great potential significance. The specific research questions that emerged from the workshop, alongside the potential for diverse communities to assemble to address them through a ‘new science of learning systems’, create an important agenda for informatics and related disciplines.

1 February 2008 in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SASusan E. Andrade
Susan E. Andrade
MRMarsha A. Raebel
Marsha A. Raebel
JBJeffrey Brown
Jeffrey Brown
KLKimberly Lane
Kimberly Lane
JLJames Livingston
James Livingston
RPRichard Platt
Richard Platt

10 February 2011 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RBRachel E. Behrman
Rachel E. Behrman
JBJoshua S. Benner
Joshua S. Benner
JBJeffrey Brown
Jeffrey Brown
MMMark McClellan
Mark McClellan
JWJanet Woodcock
Janet Woodcock
RPRichard Platt
Richard Platt
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has the capacity to “query” the electronic health information of more than 60 million people, posing specific questions in order to monitor the safety of approved medical products. This pilot program, called Mini-Sentinel, uses a distributed data network (rather than a centralized database) that allows participating health plans and other organizations to create data files in a standard format and to maintain possession of those files. These organizations perform most analyses of their own data by running computer programs distributed by a coordinating center, and they provide consistent summarized results for the FDA's review.1 The principles and practices involved in this effort to improve the safety of medical products can inform other uses of electronic health information to answer additional important questions about health and health care.

15 February 2012 in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HEH-G Eichler
H-G Eichler
KOK Oye
K Oye
LBL G Baird
L G Baird
EAE Abadie
E Abadie
JBJeffrey Brown
Jeffrey Brown
GHG Hirsch
G Hirsch