Christopher Aakre1, Mikhail Dziadzko, Mark T Keegan, Vitaly Herasevich. 1. Christopher A Aakre, M.D., Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, Fax: 507-284-5370, Telephone: 507-538-0621, Email: aakre.christopher@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based clinical scores are used frequently in clinical practice, but data collection and data entry can be time consuming and hinder their use. We investigated the programmability of 168 common clinical calculators for automation within electronic health records. METHODS: We manually reviewed and categorized variables from 168 clinical calculators as being extractable from structured data, unstructured data, or both. Advanced data retrieval methods from unstructured data sources were tabulated for diagnoses, non-laboratory test results, clinical history, and examination findings. RESULTS: We identified 534 unique variables, of which 203/534 (37.8%) were extractable from structured data and 269/534 (50.4.7%) were potentially extractable using advanced techniques. Nearly half (265/534, 49.6%) of all variables were not retrievable. Only 26/168 (15.5%) of scores were completely programmable using only structured data and 43/168 (25.6%) could potentially be programmable using widely available advanced information retrieval techniques. Scores relying on clinical examination findings or clinical judgments were most often not completely programmable. CONCLUSION: Complete automation is not possible for most clinical scores because of the high prevalence of clinical examination findings or clinical judgments - partial automation is the most that can be achieved. The effect of fully or partially automated score calculation on clinical efficiency and clinical guideline adherence requires further study.
OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based clinical scores are used frequently in clinical practice, but data collection and data entry can be time consuming and hinder their use. We investigated the programmability of 168 common clinical calculators for automation within electronic health records. METHODS: We manually reviewed and categorized variables from 168 clinical calculators as being extractable from structured data, unstructured data, or both. Advanced data retrieval methods from unstructured data sources were tabulated for diagnoses, non-laboratory test results, clinical history, and examination findings. RESULTS: We identified 534 unique variables, of which 203/534 (37.8%) were extractable from structured data and 269/534 (50.4.7%) were potentially extractable using advanced techniques. Nearly half (265/534, 49.6%) of all variables were not retrievable. Only 26/168 (15.5%) of scores were completely programmable using only structured data and 43/168 (25.6%) could potentially be programmable using widely available advanced information retrieval techniques. Scores relying on clinical examination findings or clinical judgments were most often not completely programmable. CONCLUSION: Complete automation is not possible for most clinical scores because of the high prevalence of clinical examination findings or clinical judgments - partial automation is the most that can be achieved. The effect of fully or partially automated score calculation on clinical efficiency and clinical guideline adherence requires further study.
Keywords:
Automation; clinical practice guideline; clinical score; decision support algorithm; knowledge translation; workflow
Authors: Lionel A Mandell; Richard G Wunderink; Antonio Anzueto; John G Bartlett; G Douglas Campbell; Nathan C Dean; Scott F Dowell; Thomas M File; Daniel M Musher; Michael S Niederman; Antonio Torres; Cynthia G Whitney Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Min Jiang; Yukun Chen; Mei Liu; S Trent Rosenbloom; Subramani Mani; Joshua C Denny; Hua Xu Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Berry de Bruijn; Colin Cherry; Svetlana Kiritchenko; Joel Martin; Xiaodan Zhu Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Peter L Elkin; Sarah Mullin; Jack Mardekian; Christopher Crowner; Sylvester Sakilay; Shyamashree Sinha; Gary Brady; Marcia Wright; Kimberly Nolen; JoAnn Trainer; Ross Koppel; Daniel Schlegel; Sashank Kaushik; Jane Zhao; Buer Song; Edwin Anand Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andrew J Matuskowitz; Jihad S Obeid; Lindsey Jennings; Richard R Bayer; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; U Joseph Schoepf; Edward C Jauch Journal: Crit Pathw Cardiol Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Safiya Richardson; Nasen Jonathan Zhang; Philippe Rameau; Marsophia Julemis; Yan Liu; Jeffrey Solomon; Sundas Khan; Thomas McGinn Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-02-28