Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Examines the identification of ACS patients using structured and unstructured eMR data, suggesting enhanced cohort creation methodology.
Background There have been few studies describing how eMR systems can be systematically queried to identify clinically-defined populations and limited studies utilising free-text in this process. The aim of this study is to provide a generalisable methodology for constructing clinically-defined eMR-derived patient cohorts using structured and unstructured data in eMRs. Methods Patients with possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were used as an exemplar. Cardiologists defined clinical criteria for patients presenting with possible ACS. These were mapped to data tables within the eMR system creating seven inclusion criteria comprised of structured data fields (orders and investigations, procedures, scanned electrocardiogram (ECG) images, and diagnostic codes) and unstructured clinical documentation. Data were extracted from two local health districts (LHD) in Sydney, Australia. Outcome measures included examination of the relative contribution of individual inclusion criteria to the identification of eligible encounters, comparisons between inclusion criterion and evaluation of consistency of data extracts across years and LHDs. Results Among 802,742 encounters in a 5 year dataset (1/1/13 to 30/12/17), the presence of an ECG image (54.8% of encounters) and symptoms and keywords in clinical documentation (41.4-64.0%) were used most often to identify presentations of possible ACS. Orders and investigations (27.3%) and procedures (1.4%), were less often present for identified presentations. Relevant ICD-10/SNOMED codes were present for 3.7% of identified encounters. Similar trends were seen when the two LHDs were examined separately, and across years. Conclusions Clinically-defined eMR-derived cohorts combining structured and unstructured data during cohort identification is prerequisite for critical validation work required for secondary use of eMR data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tam et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: