ArticleJournal of immigrant and minority health2024
The Need for Standardized Nomenclature in Electronic Documentation of Female Genital Cutting in Health Records.
Article in Journal of immigrant and minority health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the quality of Electronic Health Record (EHR) documentation practices of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) by medical providers. A retrospective chart review study of 99 patient encounter notes within the University of Minnesota health system (inclusive of 40 hospitals and clinics) was conducted. Extracted data included but was not limited to patient demographics, reason for patient visit, ICD code used in note, and provider description of FGC anatomy. Data was entered into REDCAP and categorized according to descriptive statistics. Out of 99 encounters, 45% used the unspecified code for FGC. The most common reason for patient visits was sexual pain, though many notes contained several reasons for the visit regarding reproductive, urological, or sexual concerns. 56% of visits discussed deinfibulation. 11 different terms for FGC were used, with "female circumcision" being the most common. 14 different terms for deinfibulation were found within 64 notes. 42% of encounters included a description of introitus size in the anatomical description, and only 38% of these provided a metric measurement. This study found significant variation in the quality of FGC documentation practices. Medical providers often used the unspecified FGC code, subjective and/or seemingly inaccurate descriptions of FGC/anatomy, and several different terms for both FGC and deinfibulation. Clearly, more education is needed in clinical training programs to (1) identify FGC type, (2) use the corresponding ICD code, and (3) use specific, objective descriptions (including presence/absence of structures and infibulation status).
Indexed as
Identifiers
38587687What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.