Anne W. Belsito

The Regenstrief Medical Record System: a quarter century experience

Entrusted with the records for more than 1.5 million patients, the Regenstrief Medical Record System (RMRS) has evolved into a fast and comprehensive data repository used extensively at three hospitals on the Indiana University Medical Center campus and more than 30 Indianapolis clinics. The RMRS routinely captures laboratory results, narrative reports, orders, medications, radiology reports, registration information, nursing assessments, vital signs, EKGs and other clinical data. In this paper, we describe the RMRS data model, file structures and architecture, as well as recent necessary changes to these as we coordinate a collaborative effort among all major Indianapolis hospital systems, improving patient care by capturing city-wide laboratory and encounter data. We believe that our success represents persistent efforts to build interfaces directly to multiple independent instruments and other data collection systems, using medical standards such as HL7, LOINC, and DICOM. Inpatient and outpatient order entry systems, instruments for visit notes and on-line questionnaires that replace hardcopy forms, and intelligent use of coded data entry supplement the RMRS. Physicians happily enter orders, problems, allergies, visit notes, and discharge summaries into our locally developed Gopher order entry system, as we provide them with convenient output forms, choice lists, defaults, templates, reminders, drug interaction information, charge information, and on-line articles and textbooks. To prepare for the future, we have begun wrapping our system in Web browser technology, testing voice dictation and understanding, and employing wireless technology.

An effective computerized reminder for contact isolation of patients colonized or infected with resistant organisms.

PURPOSE To improve contact isolation rates among patients admitted to the hospital with a known history of infection with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE). METHODS A before and after interventional study implementing computerized reminders for contact isolation between February 25, 2005 and February 28, 2006. We measured rates of appropriate contact isolation, and time to isolation for the 4 month pre-intervention period, and the 12 month intervention period. We conducted a survey of ordering physicians at the midpoint of the intervention period. RESULTS Implementing a computerized reminder increased the rate of patients appropriately isolated from 33% to fully 89% (P<0.0001). The median time to writing contact isolation orders decreased from 16.6 to 0.0 h (P<0.0001). Physicians accepted the order 80% of the time on the first or second presentation. Ninety-five percent of physicians felt the reminder had no impact on workflow, or saved them time. CONCLUSION A human reviewed computerized reminder can achieve high rates of compliance with infection control recommendations for contact isolation, and dramatically reduce the time to orders being written upon admission.

A simple error classification system for understanding sources of error in automatic speech recognition and human transcription.

OBJECTIVES To (1) discover the types of errors most commonly found in clinical notes that are generated either using automatic speech recognition (ASR) or via human transcription and (2) to develop efficient rules for classifying these errors based on the categories found in (1). The purpose of classifying errors into categories is to understand the underlying processes that generate these errors, so that measures can be taken to improve these processes. METHODS We integrated the Dragon NaturallySpeaking v4.0 speech recognition engine into the Regenstrief Medical Record System. We captured the text output of the speech engine prior to error correction by the speaker. We also acquired a set of human transcribed but uncorrected notes for comparison. We then attempted to error correct these notes based on looking at the context alone. Initially, three domain experts independently examined 104 ASR notes (containing 29,144 words) generated by a single speaker and 44 human transcribed notes (containing 14,199 words) generated by multiple speakers for errors. Collaborative group sessions were subsequently held where error categorizes were determined and rules developed and incrementally refined for systematically examining the notes and classifying errors. RESULTS We found that the errors could be classified into nine categories: (1) announciation errors occurring due to speaker mispronounciation, (2) dictionary errors resulting from missing terms, (3) suffix errors caused by misrecognition of appropriate tenses of a word, (4) added words, (5) deleted words, (6) homonym errors resulting from substitution of a phonetically identical word, (7) spelling errors, (8) nonsense errors, words/phrases whose meaning could not be appreciated by examining just the context, and (9) critical errors, words/phrases where a reader of a note could potentially misunderstand the concept that was related by the speaker. CONCLUSIONS A simple method is presented for examining errors in transcribed documents and classifying these errors into meaningful and useful categories. Such a classification can potentially help pinpoint sources of such errors so that measures (such as better training of the speaker and improved dictionary and language modeling) can be taken to optimize the error rates.

Data for drugs available through low-cost prescription drug programs are available through pharmacy benefit manager and claims data.

BackgroundObservational data are increasingly being used for pharmacoepidemiological, health services and clinical effectiveness research. Since pharmacies first introduced low-cost prescription programs (LCPP), researchers have worried that data about the medications provided through these programs might not be available in observational data derived from administrative sources, such as payer claims or pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company transactions.MethodWe used data from the Indiana Network for Patient Care to estimate the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes to whom an oral hypoglycemic agent was dispensed. Based on these estimates, we compared the proportions of patients who received medications from chains that do and do not offer an LCPP, the proportion trend over time based on claims data from a single payer, and to proportions estimated from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).ResultsWe found that the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes who received oral hypoglycemic medications did not vary based on whether the chain that dispensed the drug offered an LCPP or over time. Additionally, the rates were comparable to those estimated from MEPS.ConclusionResearchers can be reassured that data for medications available through LCPPs continue to be available through administrative data sources.