Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33334872›Full record

ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2020

Improving the impact of clinical documentation through patient-driven co-design: experiences with cancer pathology reports.

Elizabeth J Austin, Jenney R Lee, Cynthia W Ko, Mark R Kilgore, Elizabeth U Parker, Brandelyn Bergstedt, Anita I Mitchell, Sara H Javid, John L Gore

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth J AustinDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA austie@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4221-1362
Jenney R LeeDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Cynthia W KoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Mark R KilgoreDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Elizabeth U ParkerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Brandelyn BergstedtOffice of Patient Experience, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Anita I MitchellOffice of Patient Experience, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sara H JavidDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
John L GoreDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
University of Washington · USSeattle Cancer Care Alliance · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWith the unprecedented rise of patient access to clinical documentation through electronic health records, there is a need for health systems to understand best practices for redesigning clinical documentation to support patient needs. This study used an experience-based co-design approach to inform the redesign of cancer pathology reports to improve their patient-centeredness and impact on patient engagement. MATERIALS AND

methodsMultiple methods for data collection and stakeholder engagement were used, including Delphi prioritisation with breast and colorectal cancer experts (n=78) and focus groups with patients with cancer (n=23) in the Seattle area. Iterative rounds of consensus generation and reflection were used to elicit themes and design recommendations for the development of patient-centred pathology reports on cancer care.

resultsAlthough each cancer type had nuanced elements to consider, common design requirements emerged around two key themes: (1) clinical documentation language should be framed in a way that informs and engages patients, and (2) clinical documentation format should be leveraged to enhance readability and information flow. Study activities illuminated detailed recommendations to improve the patient-centeredness of pathology reports based on patients' and clinicians' lived experience. DISCUSSION: The design requirements that emerged from this study provide a framework that can guide the rapid development of patient-centred pathology reports for all cancer types. Even further, health systems can replicate these methods to guide experience-based co-design of clinical documentation for contexts beyond cancer care.

conclusionThis work offers practice-based learnings that can more effectively guide health systems in their clinical documentation redesign efforts.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsNeoplasmsPathology, ClinicalPatient Access to RecordsFocus GroupsHumansTerminology as TopicBMJ health informaticsmedical informaticspatient care

Identifiers

PMID33334872
PMCPMC7747547
OpenAlexW3112234899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.