Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Short Articles: How Do They Impact Our Practice? Sir: “T use of tissue from the buttocks to augment the breast is a time-honored procedure. In the following case the breast repays its debt to the buttocks.”1 With these words, Bartels et al. introduced the first report on gluteal augmentation in the medical literature, published in the Journal in 1969. (See Document, Supplemental Digital Content 1, which shows the first historical report on gluteal augmentation by Bartels et al.,1 published in the November of 1969 issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, http://links.lww.com/PRS/B903.) To perform their pioneering intervention, they described an unusual use of Cronin prosthesis, thus justifying the to our data-friendly note model, it uses text data extraction software to capture data from medical notes. However, in natural language processing, the text is scanned directly for clinical data points. Because providers can vary greatly in the way they document information, manual chart review is still required to create/validate all terms that correspond to the clinical data points of interest, an extremely labor-intensive process. The data-friendly note model takes advantage of the electronic medical record system’s ability to standardize documentation (specifically, the text prompts that are associated with the clinical data points). Provided that the documenting provider does not alter these templated text prompts, he or she retains full flexibility to customize the body of the note, including any method of data entry (e.g., drop-down menus, free typing/dictating). Electronic templates have been associated with less variation and increased completeness of data entry, and increased provider satisfaction with the electronic medical record system.3–5 In addition, many clinical data points can be automatically inserted on the note by the electronic medical record system (e.g., name, date). In conclusion, redesigned electronic medical record system notes (data-friendly notes) provided customary clinical documentation and allowed automated data retrieval by text data extraction software, with 100 percent accuracy. Data-friendly notes were also found to improve our workflow, with a statistically significant decrease in provider documentation time. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002663
[1]
M. Kahn,et al.
Feasibility of integrating research data collection into routine clinical practice using the electronic health record.
,
2014,
The Journal of urology.
[2]
Scott R. Halgrim,et al.
Using natural language processing to improve efficiency of manual chart abstraction in research: the case of breast cancer recurrence.
,
2014,
American journal of epidemiology.
[3]
Cara A Harshberger,et al.
Outcomes of computerized physician order entry in an electronic health record after implementation in an outpatient oncology setting.
,
2011,
Journal of oncology practice.
[4]
Rod J. Rohrich.
Improving Letters and Viewpoints
,
2005
.
[5]
S. T. Rosenbloom,et al.
Improving documentation of patient acuity level using a progress note template.
,
2004,
Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
[6]
R. Wilson,et al.
An unusual use of the Cronin breast prosthesis. Case report.
,
1969,
Plastic and reconstructive surgery.
[7]
David A Hanauer,et al.
Informatics and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: automated processes could replace manual record review.
,
2009,
Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
[8]
W. Cocke,et al.
Gluteal augmentation.
,
1973,
Plastic and reconstructive surgery.