» Articles » PMID: 22482913

Applying a Natural Language Processing Tool to Electronic Health Records to Assess Performance on Colonoscopy Quality Measures

Overview
Date 2012 Apr 10
PMID 22482913
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Gastroenterology specialty societies have advocated that providers routinely assess their performance on colonoscopy quality measures. Such routine measurement has been hampered by the costs and time required to manually review colonoscopy and pathology reports. Natural language processing (NLP) is a field of computer science in which programs are trained to extract relevant information from text reports in an automated fashion.

Objective: To demonstrate the efficiency and potential of NLP-based colonoscopy quality measurement.

Design: In a cross-sectional study design, we used a previously validated NLP program to analyze colonoscopy reports and associated pathology notes. The resulting data were used to generate provider performance on colonoscopy quality measures.

Setting: Nine hospitals in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center health care system.

Patients: Study sample consisted of the 24,157 colonoscopy reports and associated pathology reports from 2008 to 2009.

Main Outcome Measurements: Provider performance on 7 quality measures.

Results: Performance on the colonoscopy quality measures was generally poor, and there was a wide range of performance. For example, across hospitals, the adequacy of preparation was noted overall in only 45.7% of procedures (range 14.6%-86.1% across 9 hospitals), cecal landmarks were documented in 62.7% of procedures (range 11.6%-90.0%), and the adenoma detection rate was 25.2% (range 14.9%-33.9%).

Limitations: Our quality assessment was limited to a single health care system in western Pennsylvania.

Conclusions: Our study illustrates how NLP can mine free-text data in electronic records to measure and report on the quality of care. Even within a single academic hospital system, there is considerable variation in the performance on colonoscopy quality measures, demonstrating the need for better methods to regularly and efficiently assess quality.

Citing Articles

Emerging applications of NLP and large language models in gastroenterology and hepatology: a systematic review.

Omar M, Nassar S, Sharif K, Glicksberg B, Nadkarni G, Klang E Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 11:1512824.

PMID: 39917263 PMC: 11799763. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1512824.


Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.

Lux T, Herold K, Kafetzis I, Sodmann P, Sassmanshausen Z, Meining A Digestion. 2024; 105(3):224-231.

PMID: 38479373 PMC: 11151964. DOI: 10.1159/000538113.


Natural Language Processing Can Automate Extraction of Barrett's Esophagus Endoscopy Quality Metrics.

Soroush A, Diamond C, Zylberberg H, May B, Tatonetti N, Abrams J medRxiv. 2023; .

PMID: 37546941 PMC: 10403813. DOI: 10.1101/2023.07.11.23292529.


Big Data in Gastroenterology Research.

Alizadeh M, Sampaio Moura N, Schledwitz A, Patil S, Ravel J, Raufman J Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(3).

PMID: 36768780 PMC: 9916510. DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032458.


Leveraging Natural Language Processing to Extract Features of Colorectal Polyps From Pathology Reports for Epidemiologic Study.

Benson R, Winterton C, Winn M, Krick B, Liu M, Abu-El-Rub N JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2023; 7:e2200131.

PMID: 36753686 PMC: 10166420. DOI: 10.1200/CCI.22.00131.


References
1.
Mysliwiec P, Brown M, Klabunde C, Ransohoff D . Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141(4):264-71. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00006. View

2.
Harkema H, Chapman W, Saul M, Dellon E, Schoen R, Mehrotra A . Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18 Suppl 1:i150-6. PMC: 3241178. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000431. View

3.
Rex D . Who is the best colonoscopist?. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 65(1):145-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.09.028. View

4.
Walsh S . The clinician's perspective on electronic health records and how they can affect patient care. BMJ. 2004; 328(7449):1184-7. PMC: 411103. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1184. View

5.
Gupta D, Saul M, Gilbertson J . Evaluation of a deidentification (De-Id) software engine to share pathology reports and clinical documents for research. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004; 121(2):176-86. DOI: 10.1309/E6K3-3GBP-E5C2-7FYU. View