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

被引:69
作者
Mehrotra, Ateev [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Dellon, Evan S. [5 ]
Schoen, Robert E. [1 ,2 ]
Saul, Melissa [1 ,2 ]
Bishehsari, Faraz [6 ]
Farmer, Carrie [3 ,4 ]
Harkema, Henk [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Med, Dept Med, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Med, Dept Biomed Informat, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[3] RAND Corp, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA USA
[5] Univ N Carolina, Sch Med, Div Gastroenterol, Ctr Gastrointestinal Biol & Dis, Chapel Hill, NC USA
[6] Northwestern Univ, Dept Med, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
ADENOMA DETECTION; MEDICAL-RECORD; SURVEILLANCE; INDICATORS; INTERVAL; SYSTEM; RATES; RISK; AGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.045
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
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. (Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1233-9.)
引用
收藏
页码:1233 / +
页数:21
相关论文
共 32 条
[11]  
LIEBERMAN DA, 1991, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V86, P946
[12]   Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable [J].
Lieberman, David ;
Nadel, Marion ;
Smith, Robert A. ;
Atkin, Wendy ;
Duggirala, Subash B. ;
Fletcher, Robert ;
Glick, Seth N. ;
Johnson, C. Daniel ;
Levin, Theodore R. ;
Pope, John B. ;
Potter, Michael B. ;
Ransohoff, David ;
Rex, Douglas ;
Schoen, Robert ;
Schroy, Paul ;
Winawer, Sidney .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2007, 65 (06) :757-766
[13]   A call to action - Measuring the quality of colonoscopy [J].
Lieberman, David .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2006, 355 (24) :2588-2589
[14]   Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium [J].
Lieberman, David A. ;
Faigel, Douglas O. ;
Logan, Judith R. ;
Mattek, Nora ;
Holub, Jennifer ;
Eisen, Glenn ;
Morris, Cynthia ;
Smith, Robert ;
Nadel, Marion .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2009, 69 (03) :645-653
[15]   The barriers to electronic medical record systems and how to overcome them [J].
McDonald, CJ .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 1997, 4 (03) :213-221
[16]   Adenoma detection rate: The real indicator of quality in colonoscopy [J].
Millan, Monica S. ;
Gross, Perita ;
Manilich, Elena ;
Church, James M. .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2008, 51 (08) :1217-1220
[17]   Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy [J].
Mysliwiec, PA ;
Brown, ML ;
Klabunde, CN ;
Ransohoff, DF .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 141 (04) :264-271
[18]   Natural language processing: an introduction [J].
Nadkarni, Prakash M. ;
Ohno-Machado, Lucile ;
Chapman, Wendy W. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2011, 18 (05) :544-551
[19]   Quality improvement in gastroenterology: a US perspective [J].
Pike, Irving M. .
NATURE CLINICAL PRACTICE GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2008, 5 (10) :550-551
[20]   Quality indicators for colonoscopy [J].
Rex, DK ;
Petrini, JL ;
Baron, TH ;
Chak, A ;
Cohen, J ;
Deal, SE ;
Hoffman, B ;
Jacobson, BC ;
Mergener, K ;
Petersen, BT ;
Safdi, MA ;
Faigel, DO ;
Pike, IM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (04) :873-885