Alexander L Kostrinsky-Thomas1, Fuki M Hisama2, Thomas H Payne3. 1. College of Osteopathic Medicine, Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, 200 University Pkwy Yakima, Washington, United States. 2. Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, United States. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians express concern that they may be unaware of important information contained in voluminous scanned and other outside documents contained in electronic health records (EHRs). An example is "unrecognized EHR risk factor information," defined as risk factors for heritable cancer that exist within a patient's EHR but are not known by current treating providers. In a related study using manual EHR chart review, we found that half of the women whose EHR contained risk factor information meet criteria for further genetic risk evaluation for heritable forms of breast and ovarian cancer. They were not referred for genetic counseling. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of automated methods (optical character recognition with natural language processing) versus human review in their ability to identify risk factors for heritable breast and ovarian cancer within EHR scanned documents. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of the chart review by comparing our criterion standard (physician chart review) versus an automated method involving Amazon's Textract service (Amazon.com, Seattle, Washington, United States), a clinical language annotation modeling and processing toolkit (CLAMP) (Center for Computational Biomedicine at The University of Texas Health Science, Houston, Texas, United States), and a custom-written Java application. RESULTS: We found that automated methods identified most cancer risk factor information that would otherwise require clinician manual review and therefore is at risk of being missed. CONCLUSION: The use of automated methods for identification of heritable risk factors within EHRs may provide an accurate yet rapid review of patients' past medical histories. These methods could be further strengthened via improved analysis of handwritten notes, tables, and colloquial phrases. Thieme. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Clinicians express concern that they may be unaware of important information contained in voluminous scanned and other outside documents contained in electronic health records (EHRs). An example is "unrecognized EHR risk factor information," defined as risk factors for heritable cancer that exist within a patient's EHR but are not known by current treating providers. In a related study using manual EHR chart review, we found that half of the women whose EHR contained risk factor information meet criteria for further genetic risk evaluation for heritable forms of breast and ovarian cancer. They were not referred for genetic counseling. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of automated methods (optical character recognition with natural language processing) versus human review in their ability to identify risk factors for heritable breast and ovarian cancer within EHR scanned documents. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of the chart review by comparing our criterion standard (physician chart review) versus an automated method involving Amazon's Textract service (Amazon.com, Seattle, Washington, United States), a clinical language annotation modeling and processing toolkit (CLAMP) (Center for Computational Biomedicine at The University of Texas Health Science, Houston, Texas, United States), and a custom-written Java application. RESULTS: We found that automated methods identified most cancer risk factor information that would otherwise require clinician manual review and therefore is at risk of being missed. CONCLUSION: The use of automated methods for identification of heritable risk factors within EHRs may provide an accurate yet rapid review of patients' past medical histories. These methods could be further strengthened via improved analysis of handwritten notes, tables, and colloquial phrases. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Oladimeji Farri; David S Pieckiewicz; Ahmed S Rahman; Terrence J Adam; Serguei V Pakhomov; Genevieve B Melton Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2012-11-03
Authors: Thomas H Payne; Lue Ping Zhao; Calvin Le; Peter Wilcox; Troy Yi; Jesse Hinshaw; Duncan Hussey; Alex Kostrinsky-Thomas; Malika Hale; John Brimm; Fuki M Hisama Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Brian C Sauer; Barbara E Jones; Gary Globe; Jianwei Leng; Chao-Chin Lu; Tao He; Chia-Chen Teng; Patrick Sullivan; Qing Zeng Journal: EGEMS (Wash DC) Date: 2016-06-01
Authors: Maurice Henkel; Tobias Horn; Francois Leboutte; Pawel Trotsenko; Sarah Gina Dugas; Sarah Ursula Sutter; Georg Ficht; Christian Engesser; Marc Matthias; Aurelien Stalder; Jan Ebbing; Philip Cornford; Helge Seifert; Bram Stieltjes; Christian Wetterauer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Amy G Feldman; Susan Moore; Sheana Bull; Megan A Morris; Kumanan Wilson; Cameron Bell; Margaret M Collins; Kathryn M Denize; Allison Kempe Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-01-13