Cited by 56Machine Learning in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Deep learning algorithms to identify documentation of serious illness conversations during intensive care unit admissions

Chan, Alex, Chien, Isabel, Moseley, Edward, Salman, Saad, Kaminer Bourland, Sarah, Lamas, Daniela, Walling, Anne M, Tulsky, James A +1 more·2019·Palliative Medicine

Abstract

Background: Timely documentation of care preferences is an endorsed quality indicator for seriously ill patients admitted to intensive care units. Clinicians document their conversations about these preferences as unstructured free text in clinical notes from electronic health records. Aim: To apply deep learning algorithms for automated identification of serious illness conversations documented in physician notes during intensive care unit admissions. Design: Using a retrospective dataset of physician notes, clinicians annotated all text documenting patient care preferences (goals of care or code status limitations), communication with family, and full code status. Clinician-coded text was used to train algorithms to identify documentation and to validate algorithms. The validated algorithms were deployed to assess the percentage of intensive care unit admissions of patients aged ⩾75 that had care preferences documented within the first 48 h. Setting/participants: Patients admitted to one of five intensive care units. Results: Algorithm performance was calculated by comparing machine-identified documentation to clinician-coded documentation. For detecting care preference documentation at the note level, the algorithm had F1-score of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.95), sensitivity of 93.5% (95% confidence interval, 90.0% to 98.0%), and specificity of 91.0% (95% confidence interval, 86.4% to 95.3%). Applied to 1350 admissions of patients aged ⩾75, we found that 64.7% of patient intensive care unit admissions had care preferences documented within the first 48 h. Conclusion: Deep learning algorithms identified patient care preference documentation with sensitivity and specificity approaching that of clinicians and computed in a tiny fraction of time. Future research should determine the generalizability of these methods in multiple healthcare systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269216318810421

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Other operational definitions of the goals-of-care construct are more amenable to measurement using rule-based and other methods.

    “Even within the community of investigators interested in measuring goals-of-care content, other operational definitions of the same construct are more amenable to measurement using rule-based and other methods.15,16,20”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 56

Authors
Chan, A., Chien, I., Moseley, E., Salman, S., Kaminer Bourland, S., Lamas, D., Walling, A. M., Tulsky, J. A., & Lindvall, C.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
  • Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Lindvall, Charlotta
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Published
2018-11-14
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
187-196
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
OpenAlex
W2900740342
Cited by
56
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6
FWCI
2.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cambia Health Foundation (Sojourn Scholars Leadership Program)
  • National Palliative Care Research Center (Junior Faculty Research Award)
  • Gloria Spivak Fund (Faculty Development Award)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
serious illness conversations, care preferences, intensive care unit admission, goals of care, code status, family communication, clinical documentation, electronic health records, physician notes, deep learning, older adults, quality indicators
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Admitting Department, Hospital, Adult, Algorithms, Boston, Critical Care, Documentation, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Guidelines as Topic

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