A Focus Area Maturity Model for a Statewide Master Person Index

Objective: The sharing of personally identifiable information across organizational boundaries to facilitate patient identification in Utah presents significant policy challenges. Our objective was to create a focus area maturity model to describe and evaluate our progress in developing a policy framework to support a statewide master person index (sMPI) for healthcare and public health operations and research in Utah. Materials and Methods: We used various artifacts, including minutes from policy guidance committee meetings over a span of 18 months, a report from Utah’s Digital Health Services Commission, and a draft technical requirements document to retrospectively analyze our work and create a focus area maturity model describing the domain of policy needed to support the sMPI. We then used our model to assess our progress and future goals. Conclusions: The focus area maturity model provides an orderly path that can guide the complex process of developing a functional statewide master person index among diverse, autonomous partners. While this paper focuses on our experience in Utah, we believe that the arguments for using a focus area maturity model to guide the development of state or regional MPIs is of general interest.

[1]  Wu Xu,et al.  Mission-Driven Priorities: Public Health in Health Information Exchange , 2009, AMIA.

[2]  Douglas MacFadden,et al.  Application of Information Technology The Shared Health Research Information Network ( SHRINE ) : A Prototype Federated Query Tool for Clinical Data Repositories , 2014 .

[3]  Frank J. Manion,et al.  Security and privacy requirements for a multi-institutional cancer research data grid: an interview-based study , 2009, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[4]  Shao-Chi Huang,et al.  The Integrated Proactive Surveillance System for Prostate Cancer , 2012, The open medical informatics journal.

[5]  Mojca Indihar Stemberger,et al.  A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity , 2009, Bus. Process. Manag. J..

[6]  H. Afshari,et al.  Information Resource Management Maturity Model , 2009 .

[7]  Can CER be an effective tool for change in the development and assessment of new drugs and technologies? , 2012, Journal of managed care pharmacy : JMCP.

[8]  Scott P. Narus,et al.  Federated Querying Architecture with Clinical & Translational Health IT Application , 2011, Journal of Medical Systems.

[9]  N. Menachemi,et al.  Benefits and drawbacks of electronic health record systems , 2011 .

[10]  Andrew D. Boyd,et al.  An 'Honest Broker' mechanism to maintain privacy for patient care and academic medical research , 2007, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[11]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Understanding information policy: concepts, frameworks and research tools , 1996, J. Inf. Sci..

[12]  Lonnie Blevins,et al.  The Indiana network for patient care: a working local health information infrastructure. An example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries. , 2005, Health affairs.

[13]  R. Sandler,et al.  Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues. , 2006, American journal of public health.

[14]  Marlies van Steenbergen,et al.  The Design of Focus Area Maturity Models , 2010, DESRIST.

[15]  Scott P. Narus,et al.  Federated querying architecture for clinical & translational health IT , 2010, IHI.