Computer-Generated Vs. Physician-Documented History of Present Illness (HPI): Results of a Blinded Comparison

Objectives:Healthcare delivery now mandates shorter visits with higher documentation requirements, undermining the patient–provider interaction. To improve clinic visit efficiency, we developed a patient–provider portal that systematically collects patient symptoms using a computer algorithm called Automated Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Symptoms (AEGIS). AEGIS also automatically “translates” the patient report into a full narrative history of present illness (HPI). We aimed to compare the quality of computer-generated vs. physician-documented HPIs.Methods:We performed a cross-sectional study with a paired sample design among individuals visiting outpatient adult gastrointestinal (GI) clinics for evaluation of active GI symptoms. Participants first underwent usual care and then subsequently completed AEGIS. Each individual thereby had both a physician-documented and a computer-generated HPI. Forty-eight blinded physicians assessed HPI quality across six domains using 5-point scales: (i) overall impression, (ii) thoroughness, (iii) usefulness, (iv) organization, (v) succinctness, and (vi) comprehensibility. We compared HPI scores within patient using a repeated measures model.Results:Seventy-five patients had both computer-generated and physician-documented HPIs. The mean overall impression score for computer-generated HPIs was higher than physician HPIs (3.68 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), even after adjusting for physician and visit type, location, mode of transcription, and demographics. Computer-generated HPIs were also judged more complete (3.70 vs. 2.73; P<0.001), more useful (3.82 vs. 3.04; P<0.001), better organized (3.66 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), more succinct (3.55 vs. 3.17; P<0.001), and more comprehensible (3.66 vs. 2.97; P<0.001).Conclusions:Computer-generated HPIs were of higher overall quality, better organized, and more succinct, comprehensible, complete, and useful compared with HPIs written by physicians during usual care in GI clinics.

[1]  J. Sapira.  The Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis , 1990 .

[2]  R. Hays,et al.  Construct Validity of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Gastrointestinal Symptom Scales in Systemic Sclerosis , 2014, Arthritis care & research.

[3]  S. Reise,et al.  Development of the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Gastrointestinal Symptom Scales , 2014, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[4]  C. Goldzweig,et al.  Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. , 2009, Health affairs.

[5]  D. Blumenthal.  Launching HITECH. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[7]  B. Spiegel.  Patient-Reported Outcomes in Gastroenterology: Clinical and Research Applications , 2013, Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility.

[8]  S. Pocock,et al.  Guideline The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( STROBE ) Statement : Guidelines for reporting observational studies * , 2014 .

[9]  E. Montague,et al.  More screen time, less face time - implications for EHR design. , 2014, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[10]  P Parks,et al.  Documentation guidelines for evaluation and management services. , 1995, Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons.

[11]  Louis-Philippe Morency,et al.  It's only a computer: Virtual humans increase willingness to disclose , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  J. Tu,et al.  Problems for clinical judgement: 1. Eliciting an insightful history of present illness. , 2001, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[14]  Peggy Nygren,et al.  Physicians, Patients, and the Electronic Health Record: An Ethnographic Analysis , 2006, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[15]  S. Bakken,et al.  Assessing Electronic Note Quality Using the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) , 2012, Applied Clinical Informatics.

[16]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, The Lancet.

[17]  M. Musen,et al.  Electronic Patient Records in Medical Practice: A Multidisciplinary Endeavor , 1999, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[18]  Enid N. H. Montague,et al.  Dynamic modeling of patient and physician eye gaze to understand the effects of electronic health records on doctor-patient communication and attention , 2014, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[19]  Wang Hong,et al.  HIMSS Electronic Health Record Definitional Model (Version 1.0) , 2007 .

[20]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[21]  Farzad Mostashari,et al.  Adoption of electronic health records grows rapidly, but fewer than half of US hospitals had at least a basic system in 2012. , 2013, Health affairs.