Table 1.
Effort expended by Stakeholders, Technology, and Research Clinical Research Network sites to stand up and maintain common data models.
| Sitea and number of common data models (CDMs) currently maintained | Number of full-time equivalent (FTE) to stand up one new CDM | Number of FTE to maintain all CDMs | |
| University of North Carolina Chapel Hill | |||
|
|
3 (PCORnetb, i2b2c [2 separate ontologies]) | Informatics: 1.0 | Informatics: 2.0 |
|
|
|
Project Management: 0.5 | Project Management: 1.0 |
| Site 1 | |||
|
|
3 (PCORnet, i2b2, OMOPd) | Informatics : 2.3 | Informatics: 5.0 |
|
|
Project Management: 1.5 | Project Management: 2.0 | |
| Site 2 | |||
|
|
3 (PCORnet, i2b2 [2 separate ontologies]) | Total: 2.5 | Informatics: 3.0 |
|
|
|
|
Project Management: 2.0 |
| Site 3 | |||
|
|
6 (PCORnet, i2b2, OMOP, 3 regional models) | Informatics: 2.5 | Informatics: 3.0 |
|
|
|
Project Management: 0.3 | Project Management: 0.3 |
| Site 4 | |||
| 2 (PCORnet, i2b2) | Total: 0.8 | Total: 0.6 | |
aNon-University of North Carolina STAR sites have been masked. Sites that did not differentiate between project management and informatics FTE have their effort reported as “Total.”
bPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Network.
cInformatics for Integrating Biology & the Bedside.
dObservational Medical Outcomes Partnership.