ArticleCureus2025
From Pen to Portal: Using Artificial Intelligence to Evaluate the Impact of Electronic Patient Information and Communication (EPIC) on the Quality of Urology Clinic Letters at a Major London Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background High-quality documentation is an essential part of providing patients with good clinical care. Clinical letters promote continuity, reduce errors, and communicate effectively between healthcare professionals. EPIC (Electronic Patient Information and Communication), an electronic patient record system introduced across several London hospitals, aims to improve the quality and consistency of documentation. There is limited evaluation of its impact on urology clinic letters. Aims The main aim of this is to evaluate the impact of EPIC implementation on the quality, structure, and readability of urology outpatient letters at King's College Hospital, a major London teaching hospital. Methods A retrospective analysis compared consultant-authored urology clinic letters before and after EPIC introduction. The pre-EPIC dataset included 115 patients (119 letters, 2003-2023), and the post-EPIC dataset included 170 patients (209 letters, 2024-2025). Each letter was assessed for structure, language, and readability, using objective metrics, including word and sentence counts, syllables, and recognised readability indices. Quality was further assessed using the Sheffield Assessment Instrument for Letters (SAIL). Results Following EPIC implementation, letters were shorter and more concise, with lower character and syllable counts. Readability improved: Flesch-Kincaid grade level decreased from 8.7 to 7.9 (p < 0.001); Gunning Fog Index decreased from 12.1 to 11.4 (p = 0.017); and Coleman-Liau Index increased from 19.0 to 20.1 (p = 0.003), indicating simpler phrasing and clearer structure. SAIL analysis showed significantly higher global quality scores (7.5 vs 6.0; p < 0.01), and improved content validity, with letters demonstrating clearer communication and better organisation. Conclusions The introduction of EPIC produced measurable improvements in the clarity, structure, and overall quality of urology clinic letters. EPIC enhanced documentation consistency and supported clearer communication between clinicians and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.