Extracting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Clinical Notes in Electronic Health Records: Assessment of Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy

D. Gori, I. Banerjee, B. Chung, M. Ferrari, P. Rucci, D. Blayney, J. Brooks, T. Hernandez-Boussard
{"title":"Extracting Patient-Centered Outcomes from Clinical Notes in Electronic Health Records: Assessment of Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy","authors":"D. Gori, I. Banerjee, B. Chung, M. Ferrari, P. Rucci, D. Blayney, J. Brooks, T. Hernandez-Boussard","doi":"10.5334/EGEMS.297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To assess documentation of urinary incontinence (UI) in prostatectomy patients using unstructured clinical notes from Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Methods: We developed a weakly-supervised natural language processing tool to extract assessments, as recorded in unstructured text notes, of UI before and after radical prostatectomy in a single academic practice across multiple clinicians. Validation was carried out using a subset of patients who completed EPIC-26 surveys before and after surgery. The prevalence of UI as assessed by EHR and EPIC-26 was compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. The agreement of reported UI between EHR and EPIC-26 was evaluated using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Results: A total of 4870 patients and 716 surveys were included. Preoperative prevalence of UI was 12.7 percent. Postoperative prevalence was 71.8 percent at 3 months, 50.2 percent at 6 months and 34.4 and 41.8 at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similar rates were recorded by physicians in the EHR, particularly for early follow-up. For all time points, the agreement between EPIC-26 and the EHR was moderate (all p < 0.001) and ranged from 86.7 percent agreement at baseline (Kappa = 0.48) to 76.4 percent agreement at 24 months postoperative (Kappa = 0.047). Conclusions: We have developed a tool to assess documentation of UI after prostatectomy using EHR clinical notes. Our results suggest such a tool can facilitate unbiased measurement of important PCOs using real-word data, which are routinely recorded in EHR unstructured clinician notes. Integrating PCO information into clinical decision support can help guide shared treatment decisions and promote patient-valued care.","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/EGEMS.297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Objective: To assess documentation of urinary incontinence (UI) in prostatectomy patients using unstructured clinical notes from Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Methods: We developed a weakly-supervised natural language processing tool to extract assessments, as recorded in unstructured text notes, of UI before and after radical prostatectomy in a single academic practice across multiple clinicians. Validation was carried out using a subset of patients who completed EPIC-26 surveys before and after surgery. The prevalence of UI as assessed by EHR and EPIC-26 was compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. The agreement of reported UI between EHR and EPIC-26 was evaluated using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Results: A total of 4870 patients and 716 surveys were included. Preoperative prevalence of UI was 12.7 percent. Postoperative prevalence was 71.8 percent at 3 months, 50.2 percent at 6 months and 34.4 and 41.8 at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similar rates were recorded by physicians in the EHR, particularly for early follow-up. For all time points, the agreement between EPIC-26 and the EHR was moderate (all p < 0.001) and ranged from 86.7 percent agreement at baseline (Kappa = 0.48) to 76.4 percent agreement at 24 months postoperative (Kappa = 0.047). Conclusions: We have developed a tool to assess documentation of UI after prostatectomy using EHR clinical notes. Our results suggest such a tool can facilitate unbiased measurement of important PCOs using real-word data, which are routinely recorded in EHR unstructured clinician notes. Integrating PCO information into clinical decision support can help guide shared treatment decisions and promote patient-valued care.
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
从电子健康记录中提取以患者为中心的结果:前列腺癌根治术后尿失禁的评估
目的:使用电子健康记录(EHRs)中的非结构化临床记录来评估前列腺切除术患者尿失禁(UI)的记录。方法:我们开发了一种弱监督的自然语言处理工具,在多个临床医生的单一学术实践中,提取根治性前列腺切除术前后UI的评估,如非结构化文本注释中所记录的。使用在手术前后完成EPIC-26调查的患者子集进行验证。使用重复测量ANOVA比较EHR和EPIC-26评估的UI患病率。使用Cohen的Kappa系数评估EHR和EPIC-26之间报告的UI的一致性。结果:共纳入4870名患者和716项调查。术前UI发生率为12.7%。术后3个月的患病率为71.8%,6个月为50.2%,12个月和24个月分别为34.4和41.8。EHR中的医生也记录了类似的发病率,尤其是早期随访。在所有时间点,EPIC-26和EHR之间的一致性是中等的(均p<0.001),从基线时的86.7%一致性(Kappa=0.48)到术后24个月时的76.4%一致性(Kapa=0.047)。结论:我们已经开发了一种使用EHR临床记录来评估前列腺切除术后UI的工具。我们的研究结果表明,这种工具可以使用真实单词数据来促进重要PCO的无偏测量,这些数据通常记录在EHR非结构化临床医生笔记中。将多囊卵巢综合征信息整合到临床决策支持中,有助于指导共享治疗决策,促进患者重视护理。
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
Implementing a Novel Quality Improvement-Based Approach to Data Quality Monitoring and Enhancement in a Multipurpose Clinical Registry. A Spatial Analysis of Health Disparities Associated with Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Children Living in Atlanta (2002–2010) Predicting the Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in the Intensive Care Unit Using Machine Learning Applying a Commercialization-Readiness Framework to Optimize Value for Achieving Sustainability of an Electronic Health Data Research Network and Its Data Capabilities: The SAFTINet Experience. Innovative Data Science to Transform Health Care: All the Pieces Matter
×
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