Fostering reproducibility, reusability, and technology transfer in health informatics

Posted on August 24, 2021 By LabLynx Journal articles

In this 2021 perspectives article published in the journal iScience, Hauschild et al. of Philipps University of Marburg lay out what they believe to be the first guidelines for an academic organization needing to incorporate a manageable and approachable quality management system (QMS) to support academic research, particularly that involving software developed in-house. Noting the challenges of academic scientific software development in health informatics and bioinformatics environments, the authors propose flexible quality management mechanisms as a means to "facilitate technology transfer as much as possible while keeping the overhead for researchers and developers in a well manageable range." After presenting the foundational guidelines for academic organizations to implement to not only promote reproducibility and reusability, but also support FAIR principles, the authors conclude that their guidelines effectively lower "the hurdle for research organizations to set up quality management" and " significantly facilitate reproducibility and reusability of scientific software and speed up technology transfer in a controlled and predictable way."

Development of a core competency framework for clinical informatics

Posted on August 16, 2021 By LabLynx Journal articles

Clinical informatics continues to be a vital component for helping to ensure quality clinical outcomes for patients. But what of those who must learn about clinical informatics and what it entails? What of its core competencies for learning? Davies et al. explore this topic in the scope of the United Kingdom and the NHS, noting that no national core competency framework for clinical informatics exists in that country. The authors provide an introduction to clinical informatics and a background review of building their Core Competencies Project in an attempt to develop a U.K.-based competency framework. Their methods—heavily leaning on interviews and a survey—are then described, along with the resulting final competency framework. After a discussion of their results and their limitations, the authors conclude that their mixed-methods approach allowed them to "take a systematic and structured approach to co-designing the framework with no major issues," adding that the "combination of qualitative and quantitative methods contributed to the robustness of the final output." However, the application of the framework still requires professional considerations and attentiveness to the needs of all stakeholders to ensure it's not too unwieldy, which can lead to knowledge "burnout."