Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38836556›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024

Evaluation of SNOMED CT Grouper Accuracy and Coverage in Organizing the Electronic Health Record Problem List by Clinical System: Observational Study.

Rashaud Senior, Timothy Tsai, William Ratliff, Lisa Nadler, Suresh Balu, Elizabeth Malcolm, Eugenia McPeek Hinz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Rashaud SeniorDuke University Health System, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7450-0484
Timothy TsaiDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8190-675X
William RatliffDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4015-3805
Lisa NadlerDuke University Health System, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2303-2320
Suresh BaluDuke Institute for Health Innovation, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4929-9130
Elizabeth MalcolmDivision of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9691-4592
Eugenia McPeek HinzDuke University Health System, Durham, NC, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3759-9806

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The problem list (PL) is a repository of diagnoses for patients' medical conditions and health-related issues. Unfortunately, over time, our PLs have become overloaded with duplications, conflicting entries, and no-longer-valid diagnoses. The lack of a standardized structure for review adds to the challenges of clinical use. Previously, our default electronic health record (EHR) organized the PL primarily via alphabetization, with other options available, for example, organization by clinical systems or priority settings. The system's PL was built with limited groupers, resulting in many diagnoses that were inconsistent with the expected clinical systems or not associated with any clinical systems at all. As a consequence of these limited EHR configuration options, our PL organization has poorly supported clinical use over time, particularly as the number of diagnoses on the PL has increased. Objective: We aimed to measure the accuracy of sorting PL diagnoses into PL system groupers based on Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) concept groupers implemented in our EHR. Methods: We transformed and developed 21 system- or condition-based groupers, using 1211 SNOMED CT hierarchal concepts refined with Boolean logic, to reorganize the PL in our EHR. To evaluate the clinical utility of our new groupers, we extracted all diagnoses on the PLs from a convenience sample of 50 patients with 3 or more encounters in the previous year. To provide a spectrum of clinical diagnoses, we included patients from all ages and divided them by sex in a deidentified format. Two physicians independently determined whether each diagnosis was correctly attributed to the expected clinical system grouper. Discrepancies were discussed, and if no consensus was reached, they were adjudicated by a third physician. Descriptive statistics and Cohen κ statistics for interrater reliability were calculated. Results: Our 50-patient sample had a total of 869 diagnoses (range 4-59; median 12, IQR 9-24). The reviewers initially agreed on 821 system attributions. Of the remaining 48 items, 16 required adjudication with the tie-breaking third physician. The calculated κ statistic was 0.7. The PL groupers appropriately associated diagnoses to the expected clinical system with a sensitivity of 97.6%, a specificity of 58.7%, a positive predictive value of 96.8%, and an F1-score of 0.972. Conclusions: We found that PL organization by clinical specialty or condition using SNOMED CT concept groupers accurately reflects clinical systems. Our system groupers were subsequently adopted by our vendor EHR in their foundation system for PL organization.

Indexed as

clinical termelectronic health recordICD-10International Classification of Diseasesproblem Listproblem list managementproblem list organizationSNOMED CTSNOMED CT GroupersSystematized Nomenclature of Medicine

Identifiers

PMID38836556
PMCPMC11151346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.