Domain B: Data Semantics & Quality¶
Using the domain reference
Domain B includes the five maturity descriptors and the source-verified minimum evidence for L3–L5. Expand the evidence section beneath each indicator and retain an auditable assessment record. See How to Apply HDRL.
Focus: Standardisation, documentation, and quality assurance
Indicators: 6 (4 Core, 2 Enhancement)
The business question
Is the data messy or ready-to-use? High maturity slashes the time spent cleaning data.
Researchers consistently report that data preparation consumes 60–80% of project time. Organisations that invest in common data models, terminology mapping, and curated research-ready datasets dramatically reduce time-to-insight and improve reproducibility. This domain measures whether data is merely available or genuinely usable at scale.
Indicator Summary¶
| ID | Indicator | Type | Class | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B.1.1 | Common Data Model Adoption | Core | C1 | Both |
| B.1.2 | Terminology Standards | Core | C1 | Both |
| B.2.1 | Quality Framework & Monitoring | Core | B0 | Both |
| B.2.2 | Data Documentation & Metadata | Core | B0 | Both |
| B.3.1 | Curated Dataset Availability | Enhancement | O | Both |
| B.3.2 | Phenotype Library & Validation | Enhancement | O | Both |
B.1 — Analytical Interoperability¶
B.1.1 Common Data Model Adoption¶
CORE · C1 · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No CDM. Data in source formats with bespoke schemas. |
| L2 | CDM (OMOP, Sentinel, PCORnet, or equivalent) evaluated. Mapping assessed. Pilot planned. |
| L3 | Core datasets partially mapped. Coverage <50%. CDM available but not routine. |
| L4 | Core datasets mapped to recognised CDM with >= 60% coverage. CDM maintained and refreshed. Standard tools operational. |
| L5 | Comprehensive CDM. Externally validated. Contributing to international networks. CDM-native services. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- CDM selection and mapping approach documented (ETL plan, data model choice)
- Evidence of partial mapping and use on core datasets (tables, coverage metrics, pilot analyses)
L4 minimum evidence
- Mapping/ETL documentation + evidence >=60% coverage for core datasets (counts/metrics)
- Operational CDM environment (repository, pipelines, refresh schedule) and maintained mappings
- Evidence standard tools are available and used (e.g., OHDSI stack)
L5 minimum evidence
- External validation/quality review of CDM mappings (peer review, audit, network validation)
- Evidence CDM is comprehensive and routinely refreshed (change logs, release notes)
- Evidence of contribution/participation in relevant networks (methods/tools shared, study participation)
B.1.2 Terminology Standards¶
CORE · C1 · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No consistent standards. Codes as recorded (mixture of Read, ICD-10, OPCS, local). |
| L2 | Strategy defined. Target standards identified. Baseline assessed. |
| L3 | Primary standards adopted (SNOMED CT, dm+d for new systems). Legacy retains original. Partial mapping. |
| L4 | SNOMED CT, dm+d, ICD-10/OPCS consistently applied. Terminology services operational. Limitations documented. |
| L5 | Full SNOMED CT with semantic interoperability. Advanced services. Contributing to standards. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Terminology standards strategy documented + mapping plan
- Evidence of partial adoption/mapping on at least one major dataset/system
L4 minimum evidence
- Evidence terminology standards are consistently applied (samples/audits across datasets)
- Operational terminology service or controlled mapping process + documented limitations
- Governance artefact for terminology updates/versioning
L5 minimum evidence
- Evidence of semantic interoperability at scale (cross-system mapping quality, reduced local code use)
- Advanced terminology services (e.g., value set management) with usage metrics
- Contribution to national/international terminology work (submissions, participation)
B.2 — Data Quality¶
B.2.1 Quality Framework & Monitoring¶
CORE · B0 · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No framework. Issues ad-hoc. No monitoring. |
| L2 | Framework defined. Dimensions identified. Baseline initiated. |
| L3 | Metrics for core datasets. Annual reporting. Issues documented. Improvement underway. |
| L4 | Comprehensive monitoring with automated checks. Metrics published. SLAs defined. Root cause analysis. |
| L5 | Real-time monitoring. Benchmarked nationally/internationally. Certification or audit. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Quality framework documented with defined dimensions and responsibilities
- Evidence of quality metrics produced for core datasets and issues tracked
L4 minimum evidence
- Documented quality framework with automated checks + coverage across core datasets
- Published/internal quality dashboard with metrics and thresholds
- Evidence of root-cause analysis process and tracked remediation actions
L5 minimum evidence
- Evidence of near-real-time or high-frequency monitoring for priority datasets
- Benchmarking against external comparators (UK/international) or certification/audit
- Evidence of continuous quality improvement (trend improvement over time)
B.2.2 Data Documentation & Metadata¶
CORE · B0 · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | Minimal documentation. Tacit knowledge. No catalogue. |
| L2 | Initiative underway. Basic documentation. Catalogue developing. |
| L3 | Structured metadata for core datasets. Variable quality. |
| L4 | Comprehensive, standardised metadata. Machine-readable. Searchable catalogue integrated with access. Regular updates. |
| L5 | Rich ecosystem with automated generation. Provenance and lineage tracking. Community contributions. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Structured metadata exists for core datasets (data dictionary/metadata template) with variable completeness
- Catalogue or register exists (even if partial) and is used for discovery
L4 minimum evidence
- Standardised, machine-readable metadata for core datasets (schema, example records)
- Searchable catalogue integrated with access workflow (screenshots/URL + process)
- Evidence of regular metadata updates (change log, release cadence)
L5 minimum evidence
- Automated metadata generation or validation pipeline (tooling evidence)
- Lineage/provenance documentation (data flows, transformations) with traceability
- Evidence of community contribution mechanism (issues/PRs, feedback loops)
B.3 — Research-Ready Data Products¶
B.3.1 Curated Dataset Availability¶
ENHANCEMENT · O · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No curated datasets. Raw extracts requiring extensive cleaning. |
| L2 | Needs assessed. Priority datasets identified. Pilot underway. |
| L3 | Selected curated datasets. Methodology documented but not standardised. |
| L4 | Portfolio with standard methodology. Derived variables, phenotypes, linked data. Version control. |
| L5 | Comprehensive library. Community contributions. Automated pipelines. Benchmarked. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Pilot curated datasets produced with documented methodology
- Evidence curated outputs used in at least one project and are versioned at least minimally
L4 minimum evidence
- Curated dataset portfolio list + published methodology/SOP
- Version control evidence for curated products (release notes, tags)
- Evidence curated datasets are routinely used (project examples/usage stats)
L5 minimum evidence
- Evidence of comprehensive curated library with automated pipelines
- Community contribution process with governance (requests, approvals, updates)
- Benchmarking or external validation of curated products (comparisons, audits)
B.3.2 Phenotype Library & Validation¶
ENHANCEMENT · O · Both
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| L1 | No library. Researchers define from scratch. |
| L2 | Concept established. Initial phenotypes documented. No validation. |
| L3 | Growing library. Selected phenotypes validated. Searchable but not integrated. |
| L4 | Comprehensive with validated definitions. Standardised validation. Integrated with access. Version control. |
| L5 | Internationally validated. Cross-references HDR UK/OHDSI. Phenotype-as-code. |
Minimum evidence for L3–L5
Use this source-defined minimum evidence with the maturity descriptors above. Record the artefact, date, scope and the claim it supports.
L3 minimum evidence
- Initial phenotype library exists (definitions stored and discoverable)
- Evidence of validation for selected phenotypes or documented validation plan
L4 minimum evidence
- Phenotype library with validated definitions and versioning (repository + governance)
- Standard validation protocol + evidence of completed validations
- Integration evidence (library searchable and usable within analysis environments)
L5 minimum evidence
- International validation/crosswalk evidence (e.g., OHDSI/HDR UK alignment) where relevant
- Phenotype-as-code implementation (tests, CI, reproducible packages)
- Evidence of sharing/contribution beyond the organisation (public repos, publications)