Disparities in Documentation: Evidence of Race-Based Biases in the Electronic Medical Record.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Zalaya K Ivy, Sharon Hwee, Brittany C Kimball, Michael D Evans, Nicholas Marka, Catherine Bendel, Alexander A Boucher
{"title":"Disparities in Documentation: Evidence of Race-Based Biases in the Electronic Medical Record.","authors":"Zalaya K Ivy, Sharon Hwee, Brittany C Kimball, Michael D Evans, Nicholas Marka, Catherine Bendel, Alexander A Boucher","doi":"10.1007/s40615-024-02132-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Personal implicit biases may contribute to inequitable health outcomes, but the mechanisms of these effects are unclear at a system level. This study aimed to determine whether stigmatizing subjective terms in electronic medical records (EMR) reflect larger societal racial biases. A cross-sectional study was conducted using natural language processing software of all documentation where one or more predefined stigmatizing words were used between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021. EMR from emergency care and inpatient encounters in a metropolitan healthcare system were analyzed, focused on the presence or absence of race-based differences in word usage, either by specific terms or by groupings of negative or positive terms based on the common perceptions of the words. The persistence (\"stickiness\") of negative and/or positive characterizations in subsequent encounters for an individual was also evaluated. Final analyses included 12,238 encounters for 9135 patients, ranging from newborn to 104 years old. White (68%) vs Black/African American (17%) were the analyzed groups. Several negative terms (e.g., noncompliant, disrespectful, and curse words) were significantly more frequent in encounters with Black/African American patients. In contrast, positive terms (e.g., compliant, polite) were statistically more likely to be in White patients' documentation. Independent of race, negative characterizations were twice as likely to persist compared with positive ones in subsequent encounters. The use of stigmatizing language in documentation mirrors the same race-based inequities seen in medical outcomes and larger sociodemographic trends. This may contribute to observed healthcare outcome differences by disseminating one's implicit biases to unknown future healthcare providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16921,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","volume":" ","pages":"3294-3300"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836187/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-02132-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Personal implicit biases may contribute to inequitable health outcomes, but the mechanisms of these effects are unclear at a system level. This study aimed to determine whether stigmatizing subjective terms in electronic medical records (EMR) reflect larger societal racial biases. A cross-sectional study was conducted using natural language processing software of all documentation where one or more predefined stigmatizing words were used between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021. EMR from emergency care and inpatient encounters in a metropolitan healthcare system were analyzed, focused on the presence or absence of race-based differences in word usage, either by specific terms or by groupings of negative or positive terms based on the common perceptions of the words. The persistence ("stickiness") of negative and/or positive characterizations in subsequent encounters for an individual was also evaluated. Final analyses included 12,238 encounters for 9135 patients, ranging from newborn to 104 years old. White (68%) vs Black/African American (17%) were the analyzed groups. Several negative terms (e.g., noncompliant, disrespectful, and curse words) were significantly more frequent in encounters with Black/African American patients. In contrast, positive terms (e.g., compliant, polite) were statistically more likely to be in White patients' documentation. Independent of race, negative characterizations were twice as likely to persist compared with positive ones in subsequent encounters. The use of stigmatizing language in documentation mirrors the same race-based inequities seen in medical outcomes and larger sociodemographic trends. This may contribute to observed healthcare outcome differences by disseminating one's implicit biases to unknown future healthcare providers.

文件记录中的差异:电子病历中种族偏见的证据》。
个人的隐性偏见可能会导致不公平的健康结果,但这些影响在系统层面的机制尚不清楚。本研究旨在确定电子病历(EMR)中的鄙视性主观用语是否反映了更大的社会种族偏见。我们使用自然语言处理软件对2019年1月1日至2021年6月30日期间使用了一个或多个预定义鄙视性词语的所有文档进行了横断面研究。研究分析了一个大都市医疗保健系统中急诊和住院病人的医疗记录,重点关注是否存在基于种族的词语使用差异,无论是特定词语还是基于对词语的共同看法的负面或正面词语分组。此外,还评估了负面和/或正面描述在个人后续接触中的持续性("粘性")。最终分析包括 9135 名患者的 12238 次就诊,患者年龄从新生儿到 104 岁不等。白人(68%)与黑人/非洲裔美国人(17%)是被分析的群体。在与黑人/非裔美国人患者的会诊中,一些负面用语(如不服从、不尊重和骂人的话)的出现频率明显更高。与此相反,在统计上,白人患者的文件中出现正面词汇(如顺从、礼貌)的可能性更大。与种族无关,在随后的接触中,负面描述比正面描述持续存在的可能性高出一倍。文件中使用侮辱性语言反映了在医疗结果和更大的社会人口趋势中看到的基于种族的不平等。这可能会将个人的隐性偏见传播给未来未知的医疗服务提供者,从而导致观察到的医疗结果差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
263
期刊介绍: Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities reports on the scholarly progress of work to understand, address, and ultimately eliminate health disparities based on race and ethnicity. Efforts to explore underlying causes of health disparities and to describe interventions that have been undertaken to address racial and ethnic health disparities are featured. Promising studies that are ongoing or studies that have longer term data are welcome, as are studies that serve as lessons for best practices in eliminating health disparities. Original research, systematic reviews, and commentaries presenting the state-of-the-art thinking on problems centered on health disparities will be considered for publication. We particularly encourage review articles that generate innovative and testable ideas, and constructive discussions and/or critiques of health disparities.Because the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities receives a large number of submissions, about 30% of submissions to the Journal are sent out for full peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信