Literature DB >> 22482913

Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures.

Ateev Mehrotra1, Evan S Dellon, Robert E Schoen, Melissa Saul, Faraz Bishehsari, Carrie Farmer, Henk Harkema.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gastroenterology specialty societies have advocated that providers routinely assess their performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Such routine measurement has been hampered by the costs and time required to manually review colonoscopy and pathology reports. Natural language processing (NLP) is a field of computer science in which programs are trained to extract relevant information from text reports in an automated fashion.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the efficiency and potential of NLP-based colonoscopy quality measurement.
DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study design, we used a previously validated NLP program to analyze colonoscopy reports and associated pathology notes. The resulting data were used to generate provider performance on colonoscopy quality measures.
SETTING: Nine hospitals in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center health care system. PATIENTS: Study sample consisted of the 24,157 colonoscopy reports and associated pathology reports from 2008 to 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Provider performance on 7 quality measures.
RESULTS: Performance on the colonoscopy quality measures was generally poor, and there was a wide range of performance. For example, across hospitals, the adequacy of preparation was noted overall in only 45.7% of procedures (range 14.6%-86.1% across 9 hospitals), cecal landmarks were documented in 62.7% of procedures (range 11.6%-90.0%), and the adenoma detection rate was 25.2% (range 14.9%-33.9%). LIMITATIONS: Our quality assessment was limited to a single health care system in western Pennsylvania.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates how NLP can mine free-text data in electronic records to measure and report on the quality of care. Even within a single academic hospital system, there is considerable variation in the performance on colonoscopy quality measures, demonstrating the need for better methods to regularly and efficiently assess quality.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22482913      PMCID: PMC3852911          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  31 in total

1.  When conversation is better than computation.

Authors:  E Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2000 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  The clinician's perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care.

Authors:  Stephen H Walsh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-15

4.  Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures.

Authors:  Henk Harkema; Wendy W Chapman; Melissa Saul; Evan S Dellon; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A Sonnenberg; F Delcò; J M Inadomi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-10-17       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Projections of demand and capacity for colonoscopy related to increasing rates of colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  S Vijan; J Inadomi; R A Hayward; T P Hofer; A M Fendrick
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 8.171

7.  Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy.

Authors:  Pauline A Mysliwiec; Martin L Brown; Carrie N Klabunde; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Screening for colon malignancy with colonoscopy.

Authors:  D A Lieberman; F W Smith
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 10.864

9.  A prospective study of the prevalence of colonic neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with an age-related risk.

Authors:  D A Johnson; M S Gurney; R J Volpe; D M Jones; M M VanNess; S J Chobanian; J C Avalos; J L Buck; G Kooyman; E L Cattau
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Evaluation of a deidentification (De-Id) software engine to share pathology reports and clinical documents for research.

Authors:  Dilip Gupta; Melissa Saul; John Gilbertson
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.493

View more
  39 in total

1.  Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures.

Authors:  Henk Harkema; Wendy W Chapman; Melissa Saul; Evan S Dellon; Robert E Schoen; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  The Use of Evidence-Based, Problem-Oriented Templates as a Clinical Decision Support in an Inpatient Electronic Health Record System.

Authors:  Raj Mehta; Nila S Radhakrishnan; Carrie D Warring; Ankur Jain; Jorge Fuentes; Angela Dolganiuc; Laura S Lourdes; John Busigin; Robert R Leverence
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Dense Annotation of Free-Text Critical Care Discharge Summaries from an Indian Hospital and Associated Performance of a Clinical NLP Annotator.

Authors:  S V Ramanan; Kedar Radhakrishna; Abijeet Waghmare; Tony Raj; Senthil P Nathan; Sai Madhukar Sreerama; Sriram Sampath
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Michele Morris; Rebecca A Gourevitch; David S Carrell; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Julia B Greer; Seth D Crockett; Andrew Baer; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Heitham Abdul-Baki; Robert E Schoen; Katie Dean; Sherri Rose; Daniel A Leffler; Eliathamby Kuganeswaran; Michele Morris; David Carrell; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Felippe O Marcondes; Katie M Dean; Robert E Schoen; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Michele Morris; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample.

Authors:  Felippe O Marcondes; Rebecca A Gourevitch; Robert E Schoen; Seth D Crockett; Michele Morris; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics.

Authors:  Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; Rebecca S Slack; Selvi Thirumurthi; Patrick M Lynch; Ethan Miller; Brian R Weston; Marta L Davila; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Robert S Bresalier; Alexander A Dekovich; Jeffrey H Lee; Sushovan Guha; Mala Pande; Boris Blechacz; Asif Rashid; Mark Routbort; Gladis Shuttlesworth; Lopa Mishra; John R Stroehlein; William A Ross
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Relationship between detection of adenomas by flexible sigmoidoscopy and interval distal colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Shari S Rogal; Paul F Pinsky; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Natural language processing accurately categorizes findings from colonoscopy and pathology reports.

Authors:  Timothy D Imler; Justin Morea; Charles Kahi; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-01-11       Impact factor: 11.382

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.