IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v42y2019i9d10.1007_s40264-019-00838-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Use of Technologies to Facilitate Medical Chart Review

Author

Listed:
  • Loreen Straub

    (Harvard Medical School)

  • Joshua J. Gagne

    (Harvard Medical School)

  • Judith C. Maro

    (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School)

  • Michael D. Nguyen

    (Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration)

  • Nicolas Beaulieu

    (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School)

  • Jeffrey S. Brown

    (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School)

  • Adee Kennedy

    (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School)

  • Margaret Johnson

    (Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School)

  • Adam Wright

    (Harvard Medical School)

  • Li Zhou

    (Harvard Medical School)

  • Shirley V. Wang

    (Harvard Medical School)

Abstract

Introduction While medical chart review remains the gold standard to validate health conditions or events identified in administrative claims and electronic health record databases, it is time consuming, expensive and can involve subjective decisions. Aim The aim of this study was to describe the landscape of technology-enhanced approaches that could be used to facilitate medical chart review within and across distributed data networks. Method We conducted a semi-structured survey regarding processes for medical chart review with organizations that either routinely do medical chart review or use technologies that could facilitate chart review. Results Fifteen out of 17 interviewed organizations used optical character recognition (OCR) or natural language processing (NLP) in their chart review process. None used handwriting recognition software. While these organizations found OCR and NLP to be useful for expediting extraction of useful information from medical charts, they also mentioned several challenges. Quality of medical scans can be variable, interfering with the accuracy of OCR. Additionally, linguistic complexity in medical notes and heterogeneity in reporting templates used by different healthcare systems can reduce the transportability of NLP-based algorithms to diverse healthcare settings. Conclusion New technologies including OCR and NLP are currently in use by various organizations involved in medical chart review. While technology-enhanced approaches could scale up capacity to validate key variables and make information about important clinical variables from medical records more generally available for research purposes, they often require considerable customization when employed in a distributed data environment with multiple, diverse healthcare settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Loreen Straub & Joshua J. Gagne & Judith C. Maro & Michael D. Nguyen & Nicolas Beaulieu & Jeffrey S. Brown & Adee Kennedy & Margaret Johnson & Adam Wright & Li Zhou & Shirley V. Wang, 2019. "Evaluation of Use of Technologies to Facilitate Medical Chart Review," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(9), pages 1071-1080, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:42:y:2019:i:9:d:10.1007_s40264-019-00838-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-019-00838-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-019-00838-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-019-00838-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:42:y:2019:i:9:d:10.1007_s40264-019-00838-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.