Use of Flags in the Electronic Medical Record: A Retrospective Analysis.

Natalie Yass, Rebekah Walker, Sneha Nagavally, Cynthia Kay
{"title":"Use of Flags in the Electronic Medical Record: A Retrospective Analysis.","authors":"Natalie Yass, Rebekah Walker, Sneha Nagavally, Cynthia Kay","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Implicit bias in patient care and outcomes is well documented. However, the presence of bias in hospital security interactions is a relatively new area of research. Flags placed on the electronic medical record identify patients considered high risk for negative outcomes, including those with security interactions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We sought to explore the types of flags and their frequency, differences among patients with flags, and their pattern over time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective chart review of flags placed on electronic medical records over 13 years of adults 18 years or older who were patients at a Midwest, tertiary, academic medical center. Descriptive statistics were used to explore patient demographic data. Chi-square tests were executed to compare patients with different flag types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three flag types were investigated: \"communication alert,\" \"vulnerable/unsafe, behavior\" and \"risk management.\" The communication alert flag was most common, although Black male patients were more likely to receive a vulnerable/unsafe behavior flag than a communication alert flag (P = 0.001). Patients who were prescribed anti-anxiety medications, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and psychotherapeutics also were more likely to receive a vulnerable/unsafe behavior flag than a communication alert flag (P = 0.001). The highest number of flags was placed during quarter 3 - the months of July, August, and September.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Records of patients with certain demographics and on certain medications were more likely to be labeled with vulnerable/unsafe behavior flags. There is no clear protocol to determine what behaviors elicit which flag. Standardized procedures could help provide transparency to this issue.</p>","PeriodicalId":94268,"journal":{"name":"WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin","volume":"124 1","pages":"42-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Implicit bias in patient care and outcomes is well documented. However, the presence of bias in hospital security interactions is a relatively new area of research. Flags placed on the electronic medical record identify patients considered high risk for negative outcomes, including those with security interactions.

Objective: We sought to explore the types of flags and their frequency, differences among patients with flags, and their pattern over time.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of flags placed on electronic medical records over 13 years of adults 18 years or older who were patients at a Midwest, tertiary, academic medical center. Descriptive statistics were used to explore patient demographic data. Chi-square tests were executed to compare patients with different flag types.

Results: Three flag types were investigated: "communication alert," "vulnerable/unsafe, behavior" and "risk management." The communication alert flag was most common, although Black male patients were more likely to receive a vulnerable/unsafe behavior flag than a communication alert flag (P = 0.001). Patients who were prescribed anti-anxiety medications, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and psychotherapeutics also were more likely to receive a vulnerable/unsafe behavior flag than a communication alert flag (P = 0.001). The highest number of flags was placed during quarter 3 - the months of July, August, and September.

Conclusions: Records of patients with certain demographics and on certain medications were more likely to be labeled with vulnerable/unsafe behavior flags. There is no clear protocol to determine what behaviors elicit which flag. Standardized procedures could help provide transparency to this issue.

电子病历中标志的使用:回顾性分析
简介:内隐偏见在病人护理和结果是有充分记录的。然而,在医院安全互动中存在偏见是一个相对较新的研究领域。放置在电子病历上的标志标识了被认为有高风险产生负面结果的患者,包括那些有安全互动的患者。目的:我们试图探讨旗子的类型和频率,患者之间的差异,以及它们随时间的模式。方法:我们对在中西部三级学术医疗中心的13岁以上18岁或以上的成人患者的电子病历上放置的标志进行了回顾性图表回顾。采用描述性统计方法对患者人口统计资料进行分析。采用卡方检验比较不同标志型患者。结果:调查了三种标志类型:“通信警报”,“脆弱/不安全,行为”和“风险管理”。沟通警示标志是最常见的,尽管黑人男性患者更有可能收到脆弱/不安全行为标志,而不是沟通警示标志(P = 0.001)。服用抗焦虑药物、抗抑郁药物、抗精神病药物和心理治疗药物的患者也更容易收到脆弱/不安全行为信号,而不是沟通警报信号(P = 0.001)。在第三季度,即7月、8月和9月,国旗的数量最多。结论:特定人口统计数据和特定药物的患者记录更有可能被标记为脆弱/不安全行为标志。没有明确的协议来确定哪些行为引发哪个标志。标准化程序有助于提高这一问题的透明度。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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