OBJECTIVE: The American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Task Force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) was established to address systemic racism and health disparities in biomedical and health informatics, aligning with AMIA's mission to transform healthcare. AMIA's DEI initiatives were spurred by member voices responding to police brutality and COVID-19's impact on Black/African American communities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Task Force, consisting of 20 members across 3 groups aligned with AMIA's 2020-2025 Strategic Plan, met biweekly to develop DEI recommendations with the help of 16 additional volunteers. These recommendations were reviewed, prioritized, and presented to the AMIA Board of Directors for approval. RESULTS: In 9 months, the Task Force (1) created a logic model to support workforce diversity and raise AMIA's DEI awareness, (2) conducted an environmental scan of other associations' DEI activities, (3) developed a DEI framework for AMIA meetings, (4) gathered member feedback, (5) cultivated DEI educational resources, (6) created a Board nominations and diversity session, (7) reviewed the Board's Strategic Planning for DEI alignment, (8) led a program to increase diversity at the 2020 AMIA Virtual Annual Symposium, and (9) standardized socially-assigned race and ethnicity data collection. DISCUSSION: The Task Force proposed actionable recommendations that focused on AMIA's role in addressing systemic racism and health equity, helping the organization understand its member diversity. CONCLUSION: This work supported marginalized groups, broadened the research agenda, and positioned AMIA as a DEI leader while reinforcing the need for ongoing transformation within informatics.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare organizations, including Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) hubs funded by the National Institutes of Health, seek to enable secondary use of electronic health record (EHR) data through an enterprise data warehouse for research (EDW4R), but optimal approaches are unknown. In this qualitative study, our goal was to understand EDW4R impact, sustainability, demand management, and accessibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We engaged a convenience sample of informatics leaders from CTSA hubs (n = 21) for semi-structured interviews and completed a directed content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: EDW4R have created institutional capacity for single- and multi-center studies, democratized access to EHR data for investigators from multiple disciplines, and enabled the learning health system. Bibliometrics have been challenging due to investigator non-compliance, but one hub's requirement to link all study protocols with funding records enabled quantifying an EDW4R's multi-million dollar impact. Sustainability of EDW4R has relied on multiple funding sources with a general shift away from the CTSA grant toward institutional and industry support. To address EDW4R demand, institutions have expanded staff, used different governance approaches, and provided investigator self-service tools. EDW4R accessibility can benefit from improved tools incorporating user-centered design, increased data literacy among scientists, expansion of informaticians in the workforce, and growth of team science. DISCUSSION: As investigator demand for EDW4R has increased, approaches to tracking impact, ensuring sustainability, and improving accessibility of EDW4R resources have varied. CONCLUSION: This study adds to understanding of how informatics leaders seek to support investigators using EDW4R across the CTSA consortium and potentially elsewhere.

OBJECTIVE: Among National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, effective approaches for enterprise data warehouses for research (EDW4R) development, maintenance, and sustainability remain unclear. The goal of this qualitative study was to understand CTSA EDW4R operations within the broader contexts of academic medical centers and technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a directed content analysis of transcripts generated from semistructured interviews with informatics leaders from 20 CTSA hubs. RESULTS: Respondents referred to services provided by health system, university, and medical school information technology (IT) organizations as "enterprise information technology (IT)." Seventy-five percent of respondents stated that the team providing EDW4R service at their hub was separate from enterprise IT; strong relationships between EDW4R teams and enterprise IT were critical for success. Managing challenges of EDW4R staffing was made easier by executive leadership support. Data governance appeared to be a work in progress, as most hubs reported complex and incomplete processes, especially for commercial data sharing. Although nearly all hubs (n = 16) described use of cloud computing for specific projects, only 2 hubs reported using a cloud-based EDW4R. Respondents described EDW4R cloud migration facilitators, barriers, and opportunities. DISCUSSION: Descriptions of approaches to how EDW4R teams at CTSA hubs work with enterprise IT organizations, manage workforces, make decisions about data, and approach cloud computing provide insights for institutions seeking to leverage patient data for research. CONCLUSION: Identification of EDW4R best practices is challenging, and this study helps identify a breadth of viable options for CTSA hubs to consider when implementing EDW4R services.

OBJECTIVE: Among National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, adoption of electronic data warehouses for research (EDW4R) containing data from electronic health record systems is nearly ubiquitous. Although benefits of EDW4R include more effective, efficient support of scientists, little is known about how CTSA hubs have implemented EDW4R services. The goal of this qualitative study was to understand the ways in which CTSA hubs have operationalized EDW4R to support clinical and translational researchers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After conducting semistructured interviews with informatics leaders from 20 CTSA hubs, we performed a directed content analysis of interview notes informed by naturalistic inquiry. RESULTS: We identified 12 themes: organization and data; oversight and governance; data access request process; data access modalities; data access for users with different skill sets; engagement, communication, and literacy; service management coordinated with enterprise information technology; service management coordinated within a CTSA hub; service management coordinated between informatics and biostatistics; funding approaches; performance metrics; and future trends and current technology challenges. DISCUSSION: This study is a step in developing an improved understanding and creating a common vocabulary about EDW4R operations across institutions. Findings indicate an opportunity for establishing best practices for EDW4R operations in academic medicine. Such guidance could reduce the costs associated with developing an EDW4R by establishing a clear roadmap and maturity path for institutions to follow. CONCLUSIONS: CTSA hubs described varying approaches to EDW4R operations that may assist other institutions in better serving investigators with electronic patient data.