Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32236917›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2020

Natural Language Processing to Extract Meaningful Information from Patient Experience Feedback.

Khalid Nawab, Gretchen Ramsey, Richard Schreiber

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Khalid NawabDepartment of Medicine, Geisinger Holy Spirit Hospital, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, United States.
Gretchen RamseyPatient Experience, Geisinger Holy Spirit Hospital, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, United States.
Richard SchreiberPhysician Informatics and Department of Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, United States.
Geisinger Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to reimbursement tied in part to patients' perception of their care, hospitals continue to stress obtaining patient feedback and understanding it to plan interventions to improve patients' experience. We demonstrate the use of natural language processing (NLP) to extract meaningful information from patient feedback obtained through Press Ganey surveys.

methodsThe first step was to standardize textual data programmatically using NLP libraries. This included correcting spelling mistakes, converting text to lowercase, and removing words that most likely did not carry useful information. Next, we converted numeric data pertaining to each category based on sentiment and care aspect into charts. We selected care aspect categories where there were more negative comments for more in-depth study. Using NLP, we made tables of most frequently appearing words, adjectives, and bigrams. Comments with frequent words/combinations underwent further study manually to understand factors contributing to negative patient feedback. We then used the positive and negative comments as the training dataset for a neural network to perform sentiment analysis on sentences obtained by splitting mixed reviews.

resultsWe found that most of the comments were about doctors and nurses, confirming the important role patients ascribed to these two in patient care. "Room," "discharge" and "tests and treatments" were the three categories that had more negative than positive comments. We then tabulated commonly appearing words, adjectives, and two-word combinations. We found that climate control, housekeeping and noise levels in the room, time delays in discharge paperwork, conflicting information about discharge plan, frequent blood draws, and needle sticks were major contributors to negative patient feedback. None of this information was available from numeric data alone.

conclusionNLP is an effective tool to gain insight from raw textual patient feedback to extract meaningful information, making it a powerful tool in processing large amounts of patient feedback efficiently.

Indexed as

FeedbackNatural Language ProcessingPatient SatisfactionHumans

Identifiers

PMID32236917
PMCPMC7113005
OpenAlexW3014284538

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.