Analysis of risk factor domains in psychosis patient health records.

BACKGROUND: Readmission after discharge from a hospital is disruptive and costly, regardless of the reason. However, it can be particularly problematic for psychiatric patients, so predicting which patients may be readmitted is critically important but also very difficult. Clinical narratives in psychiatric electronic health records (EHRs) span a wide range of topics and vocabulary; therefore, a psychiatric readmission prediction model must begin with a robust and interpretable topic extraction component. RESULTS: We designed and evaluated multiple multilayer perceptron and radial basis function neural networks to predict the sentences in a patient's EHR that are associated with one or more of seven readmission risk factor domains that we identified. In contrast to our baseline cosine similarity model that is based on the methodologies of prior works, our deep learning approaches achieved considerably better F1 scores (0.83 vs 0.66) while also being more scalable and computationally efficient with large volumes of data. Additionally, we found that integrating clinically relevant multiword expressions during preprocessing improves the accuracy of our models and allows for identifying a wider scope of training data in a semi-supervised setting. CONCLUSION: We created a data pipeline for using document vector similarity metrics to perform topic extraction on psychiatric EHR data in service of our long-term goal of creating a readmission risk classifier. We show results for our topic extraction model and identify additional features we will be incorporating in the future.

A clinician survey of using speech recognition for clinical documentation in the electronic health record.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of speech recognition (SR) technology in clinicians' documentation workflows by examining use of, experience with and opinions about this technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We distributed a survey in 2016-2017 to 1731 clinician SR users at two large medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts and Aurora, Colorado. The survey asked about demographic and clinical characteristics, SR use and preferences, perceived accuracy, efficiency, and usability of SR, and overall satisfaction. Associations between outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) and factors (e.g., error prevalence) were measured using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Most respondents (65.3%) had used their SR system for under one year. 75.5% of respondents estimated seeing 10 or fewer errors per dictation, but 19.6% estimated half or more of errors were clinically significant. Although 29.4% of respondents did not include SR among their preferred documentation methods, 78.8% were satisfied with SR, and 77.2% agreed that SR improves efficiency. Satisfaction was associated positively with efficiency and negatively with error prevalence and editing time. Respondents were interested in further training about using SR effectively but expressed concerns regarding software reliability, editing and workflow. DISCUSSION: Compared to other documentation methods (e.g., scribes, templates, typing, traditional dictation), SR has emerged as an effective solution, overcoming limitations inherent in other options and potentially improving efficiency while preserving documentation quality. CONCLUSION: While concerns about SR usability and accuracy persist, clinicians expressed positive opinions about its impact on workflow and efficiency. Faster and better approaches are needed for clinical documentation, and SR is likely to play an important role going forward.

Analysis of Errors in Dictated Clinical Documents Assisted by Speech Recognition Software and Professional Transcriptionists.

IMPORTANCE: Accurate clinical documentation is critical to health care quality and safety. Dictation services supported by speech recognition (SR) technology and professional medical transcriptionists are widely used by US clinicians. However, the quality of SR-assisted documentation has not been thoroughly studied. OBJECTIVE: To identify and analyze errors at each stage of the SR-assisted dictation process. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study collected a stratified random sample of 217 notes (83 office notes, 75 discharge summaries, and 59 operative notes) dictated by 144 physicians between January 1 and December 31, 2016, at 2 health care organizations using Dragon Medical 360 | eScription (Nuance). Errors were annotated in the SR engine-generated document (SR), the medical transcriptionist-edited document (MT), and the physician's signed note (SN). Each document was compared with a criterion standard created from the original audio recordings and medical record review. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Error rate; mean errors per document; error frequency by general type (eg, deletion), semantic type (eg, medication), and clinical significance; and variations by physician characteristics, note type, and institution. RESULTS: Among the 217 notes, there were 144 unique dictating physicians: 44 female (30.6%) and 10 unknown sex (6.9%). Mean (SD) physician age was 52 (12.5) years (median [range] age, 54 [28-80] years). Among 121 physicians for whom specialty information was available (84.0%), 35 specialties were represented, including 45 surgeons (37.2%), 30 internists (24.8%), and 46 others (38.0%). The error rate in SR notes was 7.4% (ie, 7.4 errors per 100 words). It decreased to 0.4% after transcriptionist review and 0.3% in SNs. Overall, 96.3% of SR notes, 58.1% of MT notes, and 42.4% of SNs contained errors. Deletions were most common (34.7%), then insertions (27.0%). Among errors at the SR, MT, and SN stages, 15.8%, 26.9%, and 25.9%, respectively, involved clinical information, and 5.7%, 8.9%, and 6.4%, respectively, were clinically significant. Discharge summaries had higher mean SR error rates than other types (8.9% vs 6.6%; difference, 2.3%; 95% CI, 1.0%-3.6%; P < .001). Surgeons' SR notes had lower mean error rates than other physicians' (6.0% vs 8.1%; difference, 2.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-3.5%; P = .002). One institution had a higher mean SR error rate (7.6% vs 6.6%; difference, 1.0%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 2.8%; P = .10) but lower mean MT and SN error rates (0.3% vs 0.7%; difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.63% to -0.04%; P = .03 and 0.2% vs 0.6%; difference, -0.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to -0.2%; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Seven in 100 words in SR-generated documents contain errors; many errors involve clinical information. That most errors are corrected before notes are signed demonstrates the importance of manual review, quality assurance, and auditing.