Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30895573›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2019

Can Automated Retrieval of Data from Emergency Department Physician Notes Enhance the Imaging Order Entry Process?

Justin F Rousseau, Ivan K Ip, Ali S Raja, Vladimir I Valtchinov, Laila Cochon, Jeremiah D Schuur, Ramin Khorasani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Can emergency department provider notes help to achieve more dynamic clinical decision support?Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors.

Justin F RousseauCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Ivan K IpCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Ali S RajaCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Vladimir I ValtchinovCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Laila CochonCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Jeremiah D SchuurDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.
Ramin KhorasaniCenter for Evidence-Based Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING-MEDICAL INFORMATICS 90T15LM007092 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Nils Gehlenborg · 1992 to 2026
$32.8M
NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007092
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen a paucity of clinical information is communicated from ordering physicians to radiologists at the time of radiology order entry, suboptimal imaging interpretations and patient care may result.

objectivesCompare documentation of relevant clinical information in electronic health record (EHR) provider note to computed tomography (CT) order requisition, prior to ordering of head CT for emergency department (ED) patients presenting with headache.

methodsIn this institutional review board-approved retrospective observational study performed between April 1, 2013 and September 30, 2014 at an adult quaternary academic hospital, we reviewed data from 666 consecutive ED encounters for patients with headaches who received head CT. The primary outcome was the number of concept unique identifiers (CUIs) relating to headache extracted via ontology-based natural language processing from the history of present illness (HPI) section in ED notes compared with the number of concepts obtained from the imaging order requisition.

resultsOur analysis was conducted on cases where the HPI note section was completed prior to image order entry, which occurred in 23.1% (154/666) of encounters. For these 154 encounters, the number of CUIs specific to headache per note extracted from the HPI (median = 3, interquartile range [IQR]: 2-4) was significantly greater than the number of CUIs per encounter obtained from the imaging order requisition (median = 1, IQR: 1-2; Wilcoxon signed rank

conclusionEHR provider notes are a valuable source of relevant clinical information at the time of imaging test ordering. Automated extraction of clinical information from notes to prepopulate imaging order requisitions may improve communication between ordering physicians and radiologists, enhance efficiency of ordering process by reducing redundant data entry, and may help improve clinical relevance of clinical decision support at the time of order entry, potentially reducing provider burnout from extraneous alerts.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Order Entry SystemsPhysiciansAutomationCloud ComputingElectronic Health RecordsHeadacheHumansNatural Language Processing

Identifiers

PMID30895573
PMCPMC6426724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.