Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».