Search

Objective: To develop a generalizable method for identifying patient cohorts from electronic health record (EHR) data-in this case, patients having dialysis-that uses simple information retrieval (IR) tools., Methods: We used the coded data and clinical notes from the 24,506 adult patients in the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care database to identify patients who had dialysis. We used SQL queries to search the procedure, diagnosis, and coded nursing observations tables based on ICD-9 and local codes. We used a domain-specific search engine to find clinical notes containing terms related to dialysis. We manually validated the available records for a 10% random sample of patients who potentially had dialysis and a random sample of 200 patients who were not identified as having dialysis based on any of the sources., Results: We identified 1844 patients that potentially had dialysis: 1481 from the three coded sources and 1624 from the clinical notes. Precision for identifying dialysis patients based on available data was estimated to be 78.4% (95% CI 71.9% to 84.2%) and recall was 100% (95% CI 86% to 100%)., Conclusions: Combining structured EHR data with information from clinical notes using simple queries increases the utility of both types of data for cohort identification. Patients identified by more than one source are more likely to meet the inclusion criteria; however, including patients found in any of the sources increases recall. This method is attractive because it is available to researchers with access to EHR data and off-the-shelf IR tools., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: To understand the factors that influence success in scrubbing personal names from narrative text., Materials and Methods: We developed a scrubber, the NLM Name Scrubber (NLM-NS), to redact personal names from narrative clinical reports, hand tagged words in a set of gold standard narrative reports as personal names or not, and measured the scrubbing success of NLM-NS and that of four other scrubbing/name recognition tools (MIST, MITdeid, LingPipe, and ANNIE/GATE) against the gold standard reports. We ran three comparisons which used increasingly larger name lists., Results: The test reports contained more than 1 million words, of which 2388 were patient and 20,160 were provider name tokens. NLM-NS failed to scrub only 2 of the 2388 instances of patient name tokens. Its sensitivity was 0.999 on both patient and provider name tokens and missed fewer instances of patient name tokens in all comparisons with other scrubbers. MIST produced the best all token specificity and F-measure for name instances in our most relevant study (study 2), with values of 0.997 and 0.938, respectively. In that same comparison, NLM-NS was second best, with values of 0.986 and 0.748, respectively, and MITdeid was a close third, with values of 0.985 and 0.796 respectively. With the addition of the Clinical Center name list to their native name lists, Ling Pipe, MITdeid, MIST, and ANNIE/GATE all improved substantially. MITdeid and Ling Pipe gained the most--reaching patient name sensitivity of 0.995 (F-measure=0.705) and 0.989 (F-measure=0.386), respectively., Discussion: The privacy risk due to two name tokens missed by NLM-NS was statistically negligible, since neither individual could be distinguished among more than 150,000 people listed in the US Social Security Registry., Conclusions: The nature and size of name lists have substantial influences on scrubbing success. The use of very large name lists with frequency statistics accounts for much of NLM-NS scrubbing success.