nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.09.2019 | Original Research Article

Evaluation of Use of Technologies to Facilitate Medical Chart Review

verfasst von: Loreen Straub, Joshua J. Gagne, Judith C. Maro, Michael D. Nguyen, Nicolas Beaulieu, Jeffrey S. Brown, Adee Kennedy, Margaret Johnson, Adam Wright, Li Zhou, Shirley V. Wang

Erschienen in: Drug Safety | Ausgabe 9/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

While medical chart review remains the gold standard to validate health conditions or events identified in administrative claims and electronic health record databases, it is time consuming, expensive and can involve subjective decisions.

Aim

The aim of this study was to describe the landscape of technology-enhanced approaches that could be used to facilitate medical chart review within and across distributed data networks.

Method

We conducted a semi-structured survey regarding processes for medical chart review with organizations that either routinely do medical chart review or use technologies that could facilitate chart review.

Results

Fifteen out of 17 interviewed organizations used optical character recognition (OCR) or natural language processing (NLP) in their chart review process. None used handwriting recognition software. While these organizations found OCR and NLP to be useful for expediting extraction of useful information from medical charts, they also mentioned several challenges. Quality of medical scans can be variable, interfering with the accuracy of OCR. Additionally, linguistic complexity in medical notes and heterogeneity in reporting templates used by different healthcare systems can reduce the transportability of NLP-based algorithms to diverse healthcare settings.

Conclusion

New technologies including OCR and NLP are currently in use by various organizations involved in medical chart review. While technology-enhanced approaches could scale up capacity to validate key variables and make information about important clinical variables from medical records more generally available for research purposes, they often require considerable customization when employed in a distributed data environment with multiple, diverse healthcare settings.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Wang SV, Schneeweiss S, Berger ML, Brown J, de Vries F, Douglas I, et al. Reporting to improve reproducibility and facilitate validity assessment for healthcare database studies V1.0. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(9):1018–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Beam AL, Kohane IS. Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA. 2018;319(13):1317–8.CrossRefPubMed

Bergquist SL, Brooks GA, Keating NL, Landrum MB, Rose S. Classifying lung cancer severity with ensemble machine learning in health care claims data. Proc Mach Learn Res. 2017;68:25–38.PubMedPubMedCentral

Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, Stumpe MC, Wu D, Narayanaswamy A, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2402–10.CrossRefPubMed

Panch T, Szolovits P, Atun R. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and health systems. J Glob Health. 2018;8(2):020303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wong A, Young AT, Liang AS, Gonzales R, Douglas VC, Hadley D. Development and validation of an electronic health record-based machine learning model to estimate delirium risk in newly hospitalized patients without known cognitive impairment. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4):e181018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wong J, Horwitz MM, Zhou L, Toh S. Using machine learning to identify health outcomes from electronic health record data. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2018;5(4):331–42.CrossRefPubMed

Ammann EM, Leira EC, Winiecki SK, Nagaraja N, Dandapat S, Carnahan RM, et al. Chart validation of inpatient ICD-9-CM administrative diagnosis codes for ischemic stroke among IGIV users in the Sentinel Distributed Database. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(52):e9440.CrossRef

McPheeters ML, Sathe NA, Jerome RN, Carnahan RM. Methods for systematic reviews of administrative database studies capturing health outcomes of interest. Vaccine. 2013;31(Suppl 10):K2–6.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Walsh KE, Cutrona SL, Foy S, Baker MA, Forrow S, Shoaibi A, et al. Validation of anaphylaxis in the Food and Drug Administration’s Mini-Sentinel. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(11):1205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Lo Re V 3rd, Haynes K, Goldberg D, Forde KA, Carbonari DM, Leidl KB, et al. Validity of diagnostic codes to identify cases of severe acute liver injury in the US Food and Drug Administration’s Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(8):861–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Cutrona SL, Toh S, Iyer A, Foy S, Daniel GW, Nair VP, et al. Validation of acute myocardial infarction in the Food and Drug Administration’s Mini-Sentinel program. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(1):40–54.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kennedy A, Lipowicz H, Pestine E, Balsbaugh C, Rogers Driscoll M, Rett M, et al. Sentinel medical chart review gap analysis; 2018. https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Methods/Chart_Review_Gap_Analysis_Report.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2018.

14.

Luo K, Lu J, Zhu KQ, Gao W, Wei J, Zhang M. Layout-aware information extraction from semi-structured medical images. Comput Biol Med. 2019;107:235–47.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wong A, Plasek JM, Montecalvo SP, Zhou L. Natural language processing and its implications for the future of medication safety: a narrative review of recent advances and challenges. Pharmacotherapy. 2018;38(8):822–41.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kayaalp M, Browne AC, Dodd ZA, Sagan P, McDonald CJ. De-identification of address, date, and alphanumeric identifiers in narrative clinical reports. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2014;2014:767–76.PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

South BR, Mowery D, Suo Y, Leng J, Ferrández Ó, Meystre SM, et al. Evaluating the effects of machine pre-annotation and an interactive annotation interface on manual de-identification of clinical text. J Biomed Inform. 2014;50:162–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Patterson OV, Forbush TB, Saini SD, Moser SE, DuVall SL. Classifying the indication for colonoscopy procedures: a comparison of NLP approaches in a diverse national healthcare system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;216:614–8.PubMed

19.

Nguyen D, O’Mara H, Powell R. Improving coding accuracy in an academic practice. US Army Med Dep J. 2017;2–17:95–8.

20.

Heywood NA, Gill MD, Charlwood N, Brindle R, Kirwan CC, Collaborative NR. Improving accuracy of clinical coding in surgery: collaboration is key. J Surg Res. 2016;204(2):490–5.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Spencer SA. Future of clinical coding. BMJ. 2016;353:i2875.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Assale M, Dui LG, Cina A, Seveso A, Cabitza F. The revival of the notes field: leveraging the unstructured content in electronic health records. Front Med. 2019;6:66.CrossRef

23.

Murdoch TB, Detsky AS. The inevitable application of big data to health care. JAMA. 2013;309(13):1351–2.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Carrell DS, Schoen RE, Leffler DA, Morris M, Rose S, Baer A, et al. Challenges in adapting existing clinical natural language processing systems to multiple, diverse health care settings. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(5):986–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Salmasian H, Freedberg DE, Friedman C. Deriving comorbidities from medical records using natural language processing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e2):e239–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Teixeira PL, Wei WQ, Cronin RM, Mo H, VanHouten JP, Carroll RJ, et al. Evaluating electronic health record data sources and algorithmic approaches to identify hypertensive individuals. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):162–71.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Snapshot of Database Statistics; 2018. https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sentinel/data/snapshot-database-statistics. Accessed 31 Oct 2018.

28.

Névéol A, Dalianis H, Velupillai S, Savova G, Zweigenbaum P. Clinical natural language processing in languages other than English: opportunities and challenges. J Biomed Semant. 2018;9(1):12.CrossRef

29.

Nishimoto N, Terae S, Uesugi M, Ogasawara K, Sakurai T. Development of a medical-text parsing algorithm based on character adjacent probability distribution for Japanese radiology reports. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47(6):513–21.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Wu Y, Lei J, Wei WQ, Tang B, Denny JC, Rosenbloom ST, et al. Analyzing differences between chinese and english clinical text: a cross-institution comparison of discharge summaries in two languages. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:662–6.PubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Henriksson A, Moen H, Skeppstedt M, Daudaravičius V, Duneld M. Synonym extraction and abbreviation expansion with ensembles of semantic spaces. J Biomed Semant. 2014;5(1):6.CrossRef

Titel: Evaluation of Use of Technologies to Facilitate Medical Chart Review
verfasst von: Loreen Straub
Joshua J. Gagne
Judith C. Maro
Michael D. Nguyen
Nicolas Beaulieu
Jeffrey S. Brown
Adee Kennedy
Margaret Johnson
Adam Wright
Li Zhou
Shirley V. Wang
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2019
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Drug Safety / Ausgabe 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-019-00838-x

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Evaluation of Use of Technologies to Facilitate Medical Chart Review

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2019

Antidepressants and the Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke in the Elderly: a Nested Case–Control Study

Auto-Generated Physiological Chain Data for an Ontological Framework for Pharmacology and Mechanism of Action to Determine Suspected Drugs in Cases of Dysuria

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial Evaluating the Ophthalmic Safety of Single-Dose Tafenoquine in Healthy Volunteers

Enabling Data-Driven Clinical Quality Assurance: Predicting Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials Using Machine Learning

Prevalence, Safety and Long-Term Retention Rates of Biologics in Hong Kong from 2001 to 2015

Fluoroquinolone Use and the Risk of Collagen-Associated Adverse Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis