Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study.

Q2 Medicine
Sarah B Floyd, Jordyn C Sutton, Marvin Okon, Mary McCarthy, Liza Fisher, Benjamin Judkins, Zachary Cole Reynolds, Ann Blair Kennedy
{"title":"Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Sarah B Floyd, Jordyn C Sutton, Marvin Okon, Mary McCarthy, Liza Fisher, Benjamin Judkins, Zachary Cole Reynolds, Ann Blair Kennedy","doi":"10.2196/60263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It remains unclear if there is agreement between physicians and patients on the definition of treatment success following orthopedic treatment. Clinical progress notes are generated during each health care encounter and include information on current disease symptoms, rehabilitation progress, and treatment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to assess if physicians and patients agree on whether patient outcomes captured in clinical progress notes reflect a successful treatment outcome following orthopedic care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a subset of clinical notes for patients presenting to a Level-1 Trauma Center and Regional Health System for follow-up for an acute proximal humerus fracture (PHF). This study was part of a larger study of 1000 patients with PHF receiving initial treatment between 2019 and 2021. From the full dataset of 1000 physician-labeled notes, a stratified random sample of 25 notes from each outcome label group was identified for this study. A group of 2 patients then reviewed the sample of 100 clinical notes and labeled each note as reflecting treatment success or failure. Cohen κ statistics were used to assess the degree of agreement between physicians and patients on clinical note content.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age of the patients in the sample was 67 (SD 13) years and 82% of the notes came from female patients. Patients were primarily White (91%) and had Medicare insurance coverage (65%). The note sample came from fracture-related encounters ranging from the second to the tenth encounter after the index PHF visit. There were no significant differences in patient or visit characteristics across concordant and discordant notes labeled by physicians and patients. Among agreement levels ranging from poor to perfect agreement, physician and patient evaluators exhibited only a fair level of agreement in what they deemed as treatment success based on a Cohen κ of 0.32 (95% CI 0.10-0.55; P=.01). Furthermore, interpatient and interphysician agreement also demonstrated relatively low levels of agreement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that physicians and patients demonstrated low levels of agreement when assessing whether a patient's clinical note reflected a successful outcome following treatment for a PHF. As low levels of agreement were also observed within physician and patient groups, it is clear the definition of success varied highly across both physicians and patients. Further research is needed to elucidate physician and patient perceptions of treatment success. As outcome measurement and demonstrating the value of orthopedic treatment remain important priorities, it is important to better define and reach a consensus on what treatment success means in orthopedic medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"e60263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809615/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/60263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It remains unclear if there is agreement between physicians and patients on the definition of treatment success following orthopedic treatment. Clinical progress notes are generated during each health care encounter and include information on current disease symptoms, rehabilitation progress, and treatment outcomes.

Objective: This study aims to assess if physicians and patients agree on whether patient outcomes captured in clinical progress notes reflect a successful treatment outcome following orthopedic care.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of a subset of clinical notes for patients presenting to a Level-1 Trauma Center and Regional Health System for follow-up for an acute proximal humerus fracture (PHF). This study was part of a larger study of 1000 patients with PHF receiving initial treatment between 2019 and 2021. From the full dataset of 1000 physician-labeled notes, a stratified random sample of 25 notes from each outcome label group was identified for this study. A group of 2 patients then reviewed the sample of 100 clinical notes and labeled each note as reflecting treatment success or failure. Cohen κ statistics were used to assess the degree of agreement between physicians and patients on clinical note content.

Results: The average age of the patients in the sample was 67 (SD 13) years and 82% of the notes came from female patients. Patients were primarily White (91%) and had Medicare insurance coverage (65%). The note sample came from fracture-related encounters ranging from the second to the tenth encounter after the index PHF visit. There were no significant differences in patient or visit characteristics across concordant and discordant notes labeled by physicians and patients. Among agreement levels ranging from poor to perfect agreement, physician and patient evaluators exhibited only a fair level of agreement in what they deemed as treatment success based on a Cohen κ of 0.32 (95% CI 0.10-0.55; P=.01). Furthermore, interpatient and interphysician agreement also demonstrated relatively low levels of agreement.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that physicians and patients demonstrated low levels of agreement when assessing whether a patient's clinical note reflected a successful outcome following treatment for a PHF. As low levels of agreement were also observed within physician and patient groups, it is clear the definition of success varied highly across both physicians and patients. Further research is needed to elucidate physician and patient perceptions of treatment success. As outcome measurement and demonstrating the value of orthopedic treatment remain important priorities, it is important to better define and reach a consensus on what treatment success means in orthopedic medicine.

评估医生和患者对临床进展记录中记录的患者结果是否反映治疗成功的共识:横断面研究。
背景:目前尚不清楚医生和患者对骨科治疗后治疗成功的定义是否一致。临床进展记录是在每次就诊时生成的,包括当前疾病症状、康复进展和治疗结果的信息。目的:本研究旨在评估医生和患者是否同意临床进展记录中记录的患者结果是否反映了骨科护理后成功的治疗结果。方法:我们对到一级创伤中心和区域卫生系统随访的急性肱骨近端骨折(PHF)患者的临床记录进行了横断面分析。这项研究是2019年至2021年期间接受初始治疗的1000名PHF患者的大型研究的一部分。从1000个医生标签笔记的完整数据集中,从每个结果标签组中随机抽取25个笔记作为本研究的分层样本。然后,一组2名患者回顾了100份临床记录的样本,并将每个记录标记为反映治疗成功或失败。采用Cohen κ统计来评估医生和患者在临床记录内容上的一致程度。结果:样本中患者的平均年龄为67岁(SD 13), 82%的记录来自女性患者。患者主要是白人(91%),有医疗保险(65%)。笔记样本来自于在索引PHF访问后的第二次到第十次与骨折相关的接触。医生和患者标注的和谐音符和不和谐音符在患者或就诊特征上没有显著差异。在从差到完全一致的协议水平中,医生和患者评估者在他们认为治疗成功的基础上仅表现出公平的协议水平,科恩κ为0.32 (95% CI 0.10-0.55;P = . 01)。此外,患者间和医师间的协议也显示出相对较低的协议水平。结论:研究结果表明,在评估患者的临床记录是否反映了PHF治疗后的成功结果时,医生和患者表现出低水平的一致性。由于在医生和患者群体中也观察到低水平的一致性,很明显,成功的定义在医生和患者之间存在很大差异。需要进一步的研究来阐明医生和患者对治疗成功的看法。由于结果测量和展示骨科治疗的价值仍然是重要的优先事项,因此更好地定义骨科医学中治疗成功的含义并达成共识是很重要的。
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 Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信