The concepts of a clinical repository and a data warehouse are similar in nature and indicate a database of relevant information. Nevertheless, there are several significant differences that affect the choice of healthcare organizations in adopting one of the models. In general, both systems retrieve healthcare information about the patients and diseases from various clinical sources (Campbell, 2018). The primary difference is the consequent capability of the model to analyze this data.
Clinical repositories are valuable sources of information; however, they do not permit the analysis of the data and its integration into other systems of the hospital. In other words, these databases only store the information that the responsible personnel retrieves to make clinical decisions. In terms of pediatric communicable diseases and vaccination statuses, it is possible to retrieve information about them, but it is complicated to connect one piece of data to another (Campbell, 2018). From these considerations, clinical repositories might not be the appropriate choice for complex databases.
On the other hand, data warehouses are more comprehensive systems that are capable of retrieving information from a larger number of sources and analyzing it simultaneously. Therefore, the primary difference between the two models is the superior analytics capability of data warehouses (Campbell, 2018). For instance, it is possible to connect laboratory results, diagnoses, demographics, treatment, and personal information to create a more integrated system (Hamoud et al., 2018). As a result, clinical data warehouses (CDWs) might significantly improve the quality of clinical decisions and the speed of data processing (Hamoud et al., 2018). In the current case, the system might analyze the vaccinated patients and their diagnoses (communicable or non-communicable) and accommodate them accordingly. Furthermore, CDWs might be used to separate the data from clinical, managerial, research, and administrative perspectives (Hamoud et al., 2018). In other words, compared to clinical repositories, CDWs are more accessible and increase the overall speed of decision-making.
Consequently, it is vital to decide on the data sources to fill in the information concerning pediatric communicable diseases. While it is possible to utilize external sources to create the database, this approach might obstruct the full functionality of a data warehouse. As mentioned briefly before, the primary advantage of this model is analytics capability, and it might be further enhanced by using internal sources. It is more complex to create a database utilizing only internal sources; however, it will enhance the overall productivity of the framework in the long term.
At present, both external and internal sources are relevant, and the application primarily depends on the industry and objectives. The study from Bi-Survey (n.d.) indicates that most companies utilize both types with an inclination toward internal ones in larger companies. Furthermore, the research also demonstrates that the prevalence of external sources might complicate the data governance and reduce the speed and accessibility of data processing (“Using internal and external data”, n.d.). Evidently, it is possible to continually increase the number of sources and complexity with the technological development of databases. Nevertheless, it is also valid that a large number of external sources might slow down the speed of data processing and reduce the overall accessibility. From these considerations, despite the initial complexity of implementation, it would be more appropriate to use internal sources at the hospital to create a data warehouse.
References
Campbell, T. (2018). Clinical data repository versus a data warehouse – Which do you need? Web.
Hamoud, A. A. K., Hashim, A. S., Awadh, W. A. (2018). Clinical data warehouse: A review.Iraqi Journal for Computers and Informatics, 44(2), 1-11. Web.
Using internal and external data for decision-making. (n.d.). Web.