BACKGROUND: Accurate knowledge of a patient's medical problems is critical for clinical decision making, quality measurement, research, billing and clinical decision support. Common structured sources of problem information include the patient problem list and billing data; however, these sources are often inaccurate or incomplete. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate methods of automatically inferring patient problems from clinical and billing data, and to provide a knowledge base for inferring problems. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified 17 target conditions and designed and validated a set of rules for identifying patient problems based on medications, laboratory results, billing codes, and vital signs. A panel of physicians provided input on a preliminary set of rules. Based on this input, we tested candidate rules on a sample of 100,000 patient records to assess their performance compared to gold standard manual chart review. The physician panel selected a final rule for each condition, which was validated on an independent sample of 100,000 records to assess its accuracy. RESULTS: Seventeen rules were developed for inferring patient problems. Analysis using a validation set of 100,000 randomly selected patients showed high sensitivity (range: 62.8-100.0%) and positive predictive value (range: 79.8-99.6%) for most rules. Overall, the inference rules performed better than using either the problem list or billing data alone. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a set of rules for inferring patient problems. These rules have a variety of applications, including clinical decision support, care improvement, augmentation of the problem list, and identification of patients for research cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Accurate knowledge of a patient's medical problems is critical for clinical decision making, quality measurement, research, billing and clinical decision support. Common structured sources of problem information include the patient problem list and billing data; however, these sources are often inaccurate or incomplete. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate methods of automatically inferring patient problems from clinical and billing data, and to provide a knowledge base for inferring problems. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified 17 target conditions and designed and validated a set of rules for identifying patient problems based on medications, laboratory results, billing codes, and vital signs. A panel of physicians provided input on a preliminary set of rules. Based on this input, we tested candidate rules on a sample of 100,000 patient records to assess their performance compared to gold standard manual chart review. The physician panel selected a final rule for each condition, which was validated on an independent sample of 100,000 records to assess its accuracy. RESULTS: Seventeen rules were developed for inferring patient problems. Analysis using a validation set of 100,000 randomly selected patients showed high sensitivity (range: 62.8-100.0%) and positive predictive value (range: 79.8-99.6%) for most rules. Overall, the inference rules performed better than using either the problem list or billing data alone. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a set of rules for inferring patient problems. These rules have a variety of applications, including clinical decision support, care improvement, augmentation of the problem list, and identification of patients for research cohorts.
Authors: Samuel J Wang; David W Bates; Henry C Chueh; Andrew S Karson; Saverio M Maviglia; Julie A Greim; Jennifer P Frost; Gilad J Kuperman Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Herbert C Szeto; Robert K Coleman; Parisa Gholami; Brian B Hoffman; Mary K Goldstein Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Shirley V Wang; Olga V Patterson; Joshua J Gagne; Jeffrey S Brown; Robert Ball; Pall Jonsson; Adam Wright; Li Zhou; Wim Goettsch; Andrew Bate Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Adam Wright; Joshua Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Stanislav Henkin; David W Bates Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-03-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: J Feblowitz; S Henkin; J Pang; H Ramelson; L Schneider; F L Maloney; A R Wilcox; D W Bates; A Wright Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: A Wright; J Feblowitz; F L Maloney; S Henkin; H Ramelson; J Feltman; D W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Rashmi K Sharma; Kenzie A Cameron; Joan S Chmiel; Jamie H Von Roenn; Eytan Szmuilowicz; Holly G Prigerson; Frank J Penedo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544