Stigmatizing and affirming provider language in medical records on hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder.

Rachel Hirshman, Shavone Hamilton, Melissa Walker, Alan R Ellis, Noel Ivey, Dana Clifton
{"title":"Stigmatizing and affirming provider language in medical records on hospitalized patients with opioid use disorder.","authors":"Rachel Hirshman, Shavone Hamilton, Melissa Walker, Alan R Ellis, Noel Ivey, Dana Clifton","doi":"10.1002/jhm.13472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stigma within the healthcare environment limits access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), even as OUD results in significant morbidity and mortality. Language in clinical documentation affects patient experience and future care through the transmission of stigma or positive regard. With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have full access to their medical records online.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of our study was to understand providers' use of stigmatizing and affirming language in the electronic health record (EHR) for OUD patients with long hospital stays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We selected patients with a first-time referral to the Duke University Hospital OUD consult service who met diagnostic criteria for OUD with a hospital stay ≥28 days from July 2019 to February 2022. Two reviewers independently evaluated each admission and discharge note for stigmatizing or affirming language and the group met weekly to validate coding reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight patients (96 notes) met our inclusion criteria. We identified 434 occurrences of stigmatizing and 47 occurrences of affirming language. One-third (34%) of stigmatizing language appeared in system-generated fields (drop-down categories and diagnosis codes) and the rest was authored by providers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Stigmatizing language was present in both provider- and system-generated language and was nine times more frequent than affirming language in the medical records of hospitalized patients with OUD. While provider education may reduce stigmatizing language, institutional level changes to the EHR and International Classification of Disease codes are necessary to decrease stigmatizing language within medical records.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.13472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stigma within the healthcare environment limits access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), even as OUD results in significant morbidity and mortality. Language in clinical documentation affects patient experience and future care through the transmission of stigma or positive regard. With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, patients have full access to their medical records online.

Objectives: The objective of our study was to understand providers' use of stigmatizing and affirming language in the electronic health record (EHR) for OUD patients with long hospital stays.

Methods: We selected patients with a first-time referral to the Duke University Hospital OUD consult service who met diagnostic criteria for OUD with a hospital stay ≥28 days from July 2019 to February 2022. Two reviewers independently evaluated each admission and discharge note for stigmatizing or affirming language and the group met weekly to validate coding reliability.

Results: Forty-eight patients (96 notes) met our inclusion criteria. We identified 434 occurrences of stigmatizing and 47 occurrences of affirming language. One-third (34%) of stigmatizing language appeared in system-generated fields (drop-down categories and diagnosis codes) and the rest was authored by providers.

Conclusions: Stigmatizing language was present in both provider- and system-generated language and was nine times more frequent than affirming language in the medical records of hospitalized patients with OUD. While provider education may reduce stigmatizing language, institutional level changes to the EHR and International Classification of Disease codes are necessary to decrease stigmatizing language within medical records.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住院阿片类药物使用障碍患者医疗记录中的污名化和肯定性医疗服务提供者语言。
背景:尽管阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)会导致严重的发病率和死亡率,但医疗环境中的污名化限制了阿片类药物使用障碍(OUD)的治疗。临床文件中的语言会通过传递成见或正面评价影响患者的体验和未来的治疗。随着《21 世纪治愈法案》(21st Century Cures Act)的通过,患者可以在网上查阅自己的全部医疗记录:我们的研究目的是了解医疗服务提供者在电子病历(EHR)中对长期住院的 OUD 患者使用羞辱性和肯定性语言的情况:我们选取了2019年7月至2022年2月期间首次转诊至杜克大学医院OUD咨询服务机构、符合OUD诊断标准且住院时间≥28天的患者。两名审查员独立评估了每份入院和出院记录中的侮辱性或肯定性语言,小组每周举行一次会议,以验证编码的可靠性:48名患者(96份记录)符合我们的纳入标准。我们发现了 434 次侮辱性语言和 47 次肯定性语言。三分之一(34%)的鄙视性语言出现在系统生成的字段(下拉类别和诊断代码)中,其余则由医疗服务提供者撰写:鄙视性语言既出现在医疗服务提供者的语言中,也出现在系统生成的语言中,在住院的 OUD 患者的病历中,鄙视性语言的出现频率是肯定性语言的九倍。虽然医疗服务提供者的教育可以减少鄙视性语言,但要减少医疗记录中的鄙视性语言,有必要对电子病历和国际疾病分类代码进行机构层面的修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Airway clearance in hospitalized children with neurological impairment: Does it work? Employing EHR usage data to improve care requires clinician engagement and trust. Assessing the impact of workload and clinician experience on patient throughput: A multicenter study. Guideline concordance of electronic health record order sets for hospital-based treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Methodological progress note: Purposeful sampling in qualitative research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1