Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23616866›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2011

Use of Headings and Classifications by Physicians in Medical Narratives of EHRs: An evaluation study in a Finnish hospital.

K Häyrinen, K Harno, P Nykänen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

K HäyrinenUniversity of Eastern Finland (Kuopio Campus), Department of Health and Social Management.
K Harno
P Nykänen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate patient care documentation by hospital physicians in EHRs and especially the use of national headings and classifications in these documentations. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe initial material consisted of a random sample of 3,481 medical narratives documented in EHRs during the period 2004-2005 in one department of a Finnish central hospital. The final material comprised a subset of 1,974 medical records with a focus on consultation requests and consultation responses by two specialist groups from 871 patients. This electronic documentation was analyzed using deductive content analyses and descriptive statistics.

resultsThe physicians documented patient care in EHRs principally as narrative text. The medical narratives recorded by specialists were structured with headings in less than half of the patient cases. Consultation responses in general were more often structured with headings than consultation requests. The use of classifications was otherwise insignificant, but diagnoses were documented as ICD 10 codes in over 50% of consultation responses by both medical specialties.

conclusionThere is an obvious need to improve the structuring of narrative text with national headings and classifications. According to the findings of this study, reason for care, patient history, health status, follow-up care plan and diagnosis are meaningful headings in physicians' documentation. The existing list of headings needs to be analyzed within a consistent unified terminology system as a basis for further development. Adhering to headings and classifications in EHR documentation enables patient data to be shared and aggregated. The secondary use of data is expected to improve care management and quality of care.

Indexed as

classificationdocumentationElectronic health recordsmedical informatics

Identifiers

PMID23616866
PMCPMC3631920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.