↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Detecting clinically relevant new information in clinical notes across specialties and settings
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-017-0464-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rui Zhang, Serguei V. S. Pakhomov, Elliot G. Arsoniadis, Janet T. Lee, Yan Wang, Genevieve B. Melton

Abstract

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. 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). 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. 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Librarian 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Computer Science 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 4 6%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 22 32%