Cited by 15Electronic Health Records SystemsMedical Coding and Health InformationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Correctly structured problem lists lead to better and faster clinical decision-making in electronic health records compared to non-curated problem lists: a single-blinded crossover randomized controlled trial

Open access
Klappe, Eva S., Heijmans, Jarom, Groen, Kaz, ter Schure, Judith, Cornet, Ronald, de Keizer, Nicolette F.·2023·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Background Correctly structured problem lists in electronic health records (EHRs) offer major benefits to patient care. Without structured lists, diagnosis information is often scatteredly documented in free text, which may contribute to errors and inefficient information retrieval. This study aims to assess whether EHRs with correctly structured problem lists result in better and faster clinical decision-making compared to non-curated problem lists. Methods Two versions of two patient records (A and B) were created in an EHR training environment: one version included diagnosis information structured and coded on the problem list ("correctly structured problem list"), the other version had missing problem list diagnoses and diagnosis information partly documented in free text ("non-curated problem list"). In this single-blinded crossover randomized controlled trial, healthcare providers, who can prescribe medications, from two Dutch university medical center locations first evaluated a randomized version of patient A, then B. Participants were asked to motivate their answer to two medication prescription questions. One (test) question required information similarly presented in both record versions. The second (comparison) question required information documented on problem lists and/or in notes. The primary outcome measure was the correctness of the motivated answer to the comparison question. Secondary outcome measure was the time to answer and motivate both questions corre…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105264

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klappe, E. S., Heijmans, J., Groen, K., ter Schure, J., Cornet, R., & de Keizer, N. F.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
Corresponding author
Klappe, Eva S.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-12
Volume
180
Pages
105264
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387783573
Cited by
15
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC 2019-AMC-JK-7, 22.442)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
problem list, electronic health records, clinical decision-making, structured clinical data, drug prescribing, diagnosis documentation, information retrieval, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Health Personnel, Humans, Drug Prescriptions, Cross-Over Studies, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review