Dataset Information

Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients benefit from access to their medical records. However, clinical notes and letters are often difficult to comprehend for most lay people. Therefore, functionality was implemented in the patient portal of a Dutch university medical centre (UMC) to clarify medical terms in free-text data. The clarifications consisted of synonyms and definitions from a Dutch medical terminology system. We aimed to evaluate to what extent these lexical clarifications match the information needs of the patients. Secondarily, we evaluated how the clarifications and the functionality could be improved.

Methods

We invited participants from the patient panel of the UMC to read their own clinical notes. They marked terms they found difficult and rated the ease of these terms. After the functionality was activated, participants rated the clarifications provided by the functionality, and the functionality itself regarding ease and usefulness. Ratings were on a scale from 0 (very difficult) to 100 (very easy). We calculated the median number of terms not understood per participant, the number of terms with a clarification, the overlap between these numbers (coverage), and the precision and recall.

Results

We included 15 participants from the patient panel. They marked a median of 21 (IQR 19.5-31) terms as difficult in their text files, while only a median of 2 (IQR 1-4) of these terms were clarified by the functionality. The median precision was 6.5% (IQR 2.3-14.25%) and the median recall 8.3% (IQR 4.7-13.5%) per participant. However, participants rated the functionality with median ease of 98 (IQR 93.5-99) and a median usefulness of 79 (IQR 52.5-97). Participants found that many easy terms were unnecessarily clarified, that some clarifications were difficult, and that some clarifications contained mistakes.

Conclusions

Patients found the functionality easy to use and useful. However, in its current form it only helped patients to understand few terms they did not understand, patients found some clarifications to be difficult, and some to be incorrect. This shows that lexical clarification is feasible even when limited terms are available, but needs further development to fully use its potential.

SUBMITTER: van Mens HJT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7737248 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study.

van Mens Hugo J T HJT van Eysden Mirte M MM Nienhuis Remko R van Delden Johannes J M JJM de Keizer Nicolette F NF Cornet Ronald R

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20201215 Suppl 10

<h4>Background</h4>Patients benefit from access to their medical records. However, clinical notes and letters are often difficult to comprehend for most lay people. Therefore, functionality was implemented in the patient portal of a Dutch university medical centre (UMC) to clarify medical terms in free-text data. The clarifications consisted of synonyms and definitions from a Dutch medical terminology system. We aimed to evaluate to what extent these lexical clarifications match the information ...[more]

PMID: 33319706

Similar Datasets

Project description:Little information exists about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients experience if patients are invited to read their doctors' office notes.To evaluate the effect on doctors and patients of facilitating patient access to visit notes over secure Internet portals.Quasi-experimental trial of PCPs and patient volunteers in a year-long program that provided patients with electronic links to their doctors' notes.Primary care practices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Massachusetts, Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC) in Washington.105 PCPs and 13,564 of their patients who had at least 1 completed note available during the intervention period.Portal use and electronic messaging by patients and surveys focusing on participants' perceptions of behaviors, benefits, and negative consequences.11,155 [corrected] of 13,564 patients with visit notes available opened at least 1 note (84% at BIDMC, 82% [corrected] at GHS, and 47% at HMC). Of 5219 [corrected] patients who opened at least 1 note and completed a postintervention survey, 77% to 59% [corrected] across the 3 sites reported that open notes helped them feel more in control of their care; 60% to 78% of those taking medications reported increased medication adherence; 26% to 36% had privacy concerns; 1% to 8% reported that the notes caused confusion, worry, or offense; and 20% to 42% reported sharing notes with others. The volume of electronic messages from patients did not change. After the intervention, few doctors reported longer visits (0% to 5%) or more time addressing patients' questions outside of visits (0% to 8%), with practice size having little effect; 3% to 36% of doctors reported changing documentation content; and 0% to 21% reported taking more time writing notes. Looking ahead, 59% to 62% of patients believed that they should be able to add comments to a doctor's note. One out of 3 patients believed that they should be able to approve the notes' contents, but 85% to 96% of doctors did not agree. At the end of the experimental period, 99% of patients wanted open notes to continue and no doctor elected to stop.Only 3 geographic areas were represented, and most participants were experienced in using portals. Doctors volunteering to participate and patients using portals and completing surveys may tend to offer favorable feedback, and the response rate of the patient surveys (41%) may further limit generalizability.Patients accessed visit notes frequently, a large majority reported clinically relevant benefits and minimal concerns, and virtually all patients wanted the practice to continue. With doctors experiencing no more than a modest effect on their work lives, open notes seem worthy of widespread adoption.The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Drane Family Fund, the Richard and Florence Koplow Charitable Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Substance use by adolescents remains to be at unacceptably high levels, and there is evidence that teens' social norms are becoming more favorable toward recreational use and perceived safety of substances such as marijuana and prescription opioids. Social media offer a low-cost, potentially high-impact approach to disseminate prevention messages. OBJECTIVE:Living the Example (LTE) is a program that trains adolescent youth ambassadors to develop and disseminate prevention messages within their own social media networks and through in-school activities. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of exposure to LTE-based social media on students in the youth ambassadors' networks. METHODS:The George Washington (GW) University designed and implemented a quasi-experimental evaluation of the LTE program in 3 Maryland high schools. Before program launch, a sample of 826 students (wave 1) at the 3 schools, drawn from a census of freshmen enrolled in a class attended by all students at the grade level, completed a survey. A total of 584 students were surveyed at the wave 2 program midpoint and 542 at the wave 3 endpoint. The survey contained questions on drug use-related attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and behaviors, all based on validated measures. We evaluated the effects of LTE on the intended next 30-day drug use, and controlling for LTE self-reported exposure, age, and gender from waves 2 and 3 was appended into a single dataset. We first conducted ordinal logistic regressions for each drug use intention in wave 3 (ie, sell or distribute illegal drugs, smoke cigarettes, drink beer/wine/hard liquor when parents do not know about it, use marijuana, use lysergic acid diethylamide, cocaine, amphetamines or other illegal drugs, use heroin, use synthetic drugs, and use any prescription pills without a prescription) to examine the association between LTE exposure and drug use intentions. We included an interaction term for the study wave to examine intervention effects. RESULTS:We found a significant positive effect of LTE exposure on all 8 measured drug use intentions: sell/distribute illegal drugs; smoke cigarettes; drink beer, wine, or liquor when my parents do not know about it; use marijuana; use cocaine, amphetamines, or other illegal drug; use heroin; use synthetic drugs; use any prescription pills without a prescription (all P<.05; odds ratios ranging from 2.12 to 3.71). We also found that boys were more likely than girls to exhibit reduced drug use intentions. We also found reductions in 30-day intentions between the second and third survey waves for all 8 measured drug use variables. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the results are consistent with and indicate a stronger LTE effect in this study compared with a previous pilot study. LTE appears to offer a protective effect, with exposure to program messages leading to reduced/improved drug use intentions.

Project description:BackgroundSecure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention.MethodsBefore scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements.ResultsForms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits.ConclusionsOurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure