Cargando…

Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings

BACKGROUND: Automated methods for identifying clinically relevant new versus redundant information in electronic health record (EHR) clinical notes is useful for clinicians and researchers involved in patient care and clinical research, respectively. We evaluated methods to automatically identify cl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Rui, Pakhomov, Serguei V. S., Arsoniadis, Elliot G., Lee, Janet T., Wang, Yan, Melton, Genevieve B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28699564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0464-y
_version_ 1783249587653312512
author Zhang, Rui
Pakhomov, Serguei V. S.
Arsoniadis, Elliot G.
Lee, Janet T.
Wang, Yan
Melton, Genevieve B.
author_facet Zhang, Rui
Pakhomov, Serguei V. S.
Arsoniadis, Elliot G.
Lee, Janet T.
Wang, Yan
Melton, Genevieve B.
author_sort Zhang, Rui
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Automated methods for identifying clinically relevant new versus redundant information in electronic health record (EHR) clinical notes is useful for clinicians and researchers involved in patient care and clinical research, respectively. We evaluated methods to automatically identify clinically relevant new information in clinical notes, and compared the quantity of redundant information across specialties and clinical settings. METHODS: Statistical language models augmented with semantic similarity measures were evaluated as a means to detect and quantify clinically relevant new and redundant information over longitudinal clinical notes for a given patient. A corpus of 591 progress notes over 40 inpatient admissions was annotated for new information longitudinally by physicians to generate a reference standard. Note redundancy between various specialties was evaluated on 71,021 outpatient notes and 64,695 inpatient notes from 500 solid organ transplant patients (April 2015 through August 2015). RESULTS: Our best method achieved at best performance of 0.87 recall, 0.62 precision, and 0.72 F-measure. Addition of semantic similarity metrics compared to baseline improved recall but otherwise resulted in similar performance. While outpatient and inpatient notes had relatively similar levels of high redundancy (61% and 68%, respectively), redundancy differed by author specialty with mean redundancy of 75%, 66%, 57%, and 55% observed in pediatric, internal medicine, psychiatry and surgical notes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Automated techniques with statistical language models for detecting redundant versus clinically relevant new information in clinical notes do not improve with the addition of semantic similarity measures. While levels of redundancy seem relatively similar in the inpatient and ambulatory settings in the Fairview Health Services, clinical note redundancy appears to vary significantly with different medical specialties.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5506580
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55065802017-07-12 Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings Zhang, Rui Pakhomov, Serguei V. S. Arsoniadis, Elliot G. Lee, Janet T. Wang, Yan Melton, Genevieve B. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research BACKGROUND: Automated methods for identifying clinically relevant new versus redundant information in electronic health record (EHR) clinical notes is useful for clinicians and researchers involved in patient care and clinical research, respectively. We evaluated methods to automatically identify clinically relevant new information in clinical notes, and compared the quantity of redundant information across specialties and clinical settings. METHODS: Statistical language models augmented with semantic similarity measures were evaluated as a means to detect and quantify clinically relevant new and redundant information over longitudinal clinical notes for a given patient. A corpus of 591 progress notes over 40 inpatient admissions was annotated for new information longitudinally by physicians to generate a reference standard. Note redundancy between various specialties was evaluated on 71,021 outpatient notes and 64,695 inpatient notes from 500 solid organ transplant patients (April 2015 through August 2015). RESULTS: Our best method achieved at best performance of 0.87 recall, 0.62 precision, and 0.72 F-measure. Addition of semantic similarity metrics compared to baseline improved recall but otherwise resulted in similar performance. While outpatient and inpatient notes had relatively similar levels of high redundancy (61% and 68%, respectively), redundancy differed by author specialty with mean redundancy of 75%, 66%, 57%, and 55% observed in pediatric, internal medicine, psychiatry and surgical notes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Automated techniques with statistical language models for detecting redundant versus clinically relevant new information in clinical notes do not improve with the addition of semantic similarity measures. While levels of redundancy seem relatively similar in the inpatient and ambulatory settings in the Fairview Health Services, clinical note redundancy appears to vary significantly with different medical specialties. BioMed Central 2017-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5506580/ /pubmed/28699564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0464-y Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Zhang, Rui
Pakhomov, Serguei V. S.
Arsoniadis, Elliot G.
Lee, Janet T.
Wang, Yan
Melton, Genevieve B.
Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
title Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
title_full Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
title_fullStr Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
title_full_unstemmed Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
title_short Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
title_sort detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5506580/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28699564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0464-y
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangrui detectingclinicallyrelevantnewinformationinclinicalnotesacrossspecialtiesandsettings
AT pakhomovsergueivs detectingclinicallyrelevantnewinformationinclinicalnotesacrossspecialtiesandsettings
AT arsoniadiselliotg detectingclinicallyrelevantnewinformationinclinicalnotesacrossspecialtiesandsettings
AT leejanett detectingclinicallyrelevantnewinformationinclinicalnotesacrossspecialtiesandsettings
AT wangyan detectingclinicallyrelevantnewinformationinclinicalnotesacrossspecialtiesandsettings
AT meltongenevieveb detectingclinicallyrelevantnewinformationinclinicalnotesacrossspecialtiesandsettings