Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14(03): 455-464
DOI: 10.1055/a-2067-5310
Research Article

Evaluation of Patient-Friendly Diagnosis Clarifications in a Hospital Patient Portal

Hugo J. T. van Mens
1   Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Methodology, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3   Department of Research and Development, ChipSoft B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Gaby E. G. Hannen
4   Department of Implementation and Support, ChipSoft B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Remko Nienhuis
5   Managing Board, Melius Health Informatics, Gouda, The Netherlands
,
Roel J. Bolt
6   Department of Pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland, Rotterdam and Schiedam, The Netherlands
,
Nicolette F. de Keizer
1   Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Methodology, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Ronald Cornet
1   Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2   Amsterdam Public Health, Digital Health, Methodology, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Medical data can be difficult to comprehend for patients, but only a limited number of patient-friendly terms and definitions are available to clarify medical concepts. Therefore, we developed an algorithm that generalizes diagnoses to more general concepts that do have patient-friendly terms and definitions in SNOMED CT. We implemented the generalizations, and diagnosis clarifications with synonyms and definitions that were already available, in the problem list of a hospital patient portal.

Objective We aimed to assess the extent to which the clarifications cover the diagnoses in the problem list, the extent to which clarifications are used and appreciated by patient portal users, and to explore differences in viewing problems and clarifications between subgroups of users and diagnoses.

Methods We measured the coverage of diagnoses by clarifications, usage of the problem list and the clarifications, and user, patient and diagnosis characteristics with aggregated, routinely available electronic health record and log file data. Additionally, patient portal users provided quantitative and qualitative feedback about the clarification quality.

Results Of all patient portal users who viewed diagnoses on their problem list (n = 2,660), 89% had one or more diagnoses with clarifications. In addition, 55% of patient portal users viewed the clarifications. Users who rated the clarifications (n = 108) considered the clarifications to be of good quality on average, with a median rating per patient of 6 (interquartile range: 4–7; from 1 very bad to 7 very good). Users commented that they found clarifications to be clear and recognized the clarifications from their own experience, but sometimes also found the clarifications incomplete or disagreed with the diagnosis itself.

Conclusion This study shows that the clarifications are used and appreciated by patient portal users. Further research and development will be dedicated to the maintenance and further quality improvement of the clarifications.

Keywords

diagnoses - electronic health records - patient portals - patient-friendly terms - SNOMED CT

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. A waiver from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of Amsterdam UMC, location AMC was obtained on June 3, 2021, and filed under reference number W21_259 # 21.285. It confirmed that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (in Dutch: “WMO”) does not apply to the study and that therefore an official approval of this study by the ethics committee was not required under Dutch law. Approval from the Data Protection Officer and the Scientific Bureau of Franciscus was obtained on March 10, 2022 (reference 2021–109). The final research protocol was registered at the ISRCTN.[29] No consent for publication was required because no individual person's data were published.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 24 October 2022

Accepted: 23 March 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
01 April 2023

Article published online:
21 June 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Keselman A, Smith CA. A classification of errors in lay comprehension of medical documents. J Biomed Inform 2012; 45 (06) 1151-1163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Irizarry T, DeVito Dabbs A, Curran CR. Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review. J Med Internet Res 2015; 17 (06) e148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Janssen SL, Venema-Taat N, Medlock S. Anticipated benefits and concerns of sharing hospital outpatient visit notes with patients (Open Notes) in Dutch hospitals: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (08) e27764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Antonio MG, Petrovskaya O, Lau F. The state of evidence in patient portals: umbrella review. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (11) e23851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hemsley B, Rollo M, Georgiou A, Balandin S, Hill S. The health literacy demands of electronic personal health records (e-PHRs): an integrative review to inform future inclusive research. Patient Educ Couns 2018; 101 (01) 2-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Woollen J, Prey J, Wilcox L. et al. Patient experiences using an inpatient personal health record. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (02) 446-460
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lalor JP, Hu W, Tran M, Wu H, Mazor KM, Yu H. Evaluating the effectiveness of NoteAid in a community hospital setting: randomized trial of electronic health record note comprehension interventions with patients. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (05) e26354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zeng-Treitler Q, Goryachev S, Kim H, Keselman A, Rosendale D. Making texts in electronic health records comprehensible to consumers: a prototype translator. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 846-850
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kandula S, Curtis D, Zeng-Treitler Q. A semantic and syntactic text simplification tool for health content. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2010; 2010: 366-370
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ramadier L, Lafourcade M. Radiological Text Simplification Using a General Knowledge Base. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018: 617-627
    Google Scholar
  • 11 van Mens HJT, van Eysden MM, Nienhuis R, van Delden JJM, de Keizer NF, Cornet R. Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20 (Suppl. 10) 278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 van Mens HJT, de Keizer NF, Nienhuis R, Cornet R. Clarifying diagnoses to laymen by employing the SNOMED CT hierarchy. Stud Health Technol Inform 2018; 247: 900-904
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 SNOMED CT Netherlands National Release Center. SNOMED CT Patient-Friendly Extension Release. Hague, The Netherlands: Nictiz; 2022
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Cornet R, Van Eldik A, De Keizer N. Inventory of tools for Dutch clinical language processing. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 245-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 van Mens HJT, Martens SSM, Paiman EHM. et al. Diagnosis clarification by generalization to patient-friendly terms and definitions: validation study. J Biomed Inform 2022; 129: 104071
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland. Jaarverslag 2021 (Annual Report). 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Cornet R, de Keizer NF, Abu-Hanna A. A framework for characterizing terminological systems. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (03) 253-266
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nachar N. The Mann-Whitney U: a test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2008; 4: 13-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Patefield WM. Algorithm AS 159: an efficient method of generating random R × C tables with given row and column totals. J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat 1981; 30: 91-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat 2001; 29: 1165-1188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lalor JP, Woolf B, Yu H. Improving electronic health record note comprehension with NoteAid: randomized trial of electronic health record note comprehension interventions with crowdsourced workers. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (01) e10793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Alfano M, Lenzitti B, Lo Bosco G, Muriana C, Piazza T, Vizzini G. Design, development and validation of a system for automatic help to medical text understanding. Int J Med Inform 2020; 138: 104109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bala S, Keniston A, Burden M. Patient perception of plain-language medical notes generated using artificial intelligence software: pilot mixed-methods study. JMIR Form Res 2020; 4 (06) e16670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chen J, Druhl E, Polepalli Ramesh B. et al. A natural language processing system that links medical terms in electronic health record notes to lay definitions: system development using physician reviews. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20 (01) e26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fernández L, Fossa A, Dong Z. et al. Words matter: what do patients find judgmental or offensive in outpatient notes?. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36 (09) 2571-2578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chimowitz H, Gerard M, Fossa A, Bourgeois F, Bell SK. Empowering informal caregivers with health information: OpenNotes as a safety strategy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2018; 44 (03) 130-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wright A, Feblowitz J, Maloney FL. et al. Increasing patient engagement: patients' responses to viewing problem lists online. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (04) 930-942
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cox C, Fritz Z. Presenting complaint: use of language that disempowers patients. BMJ 2022; 377: e066720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 van Mens HJT, Hannen G, Nienhuis R, Bolt RJ, de Keizer NF, Cornet R. Better explanations for diagnoses in your medical record: use and ratings of an information button to clarify diagnoses in a hospital patient portal. ISRCTN 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN59598141
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar