Download PDF
Yearb Med Inform 2007; 16(01): 47-48
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1638525
Synopsis
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Electronic Patient Records: Some Answers to the Data Representation and Reuse Challenges

Findings from the Section on Patient Records
S. Meystre
University of Utah, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
,
Managing Editor for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Patient Records › Author AffiliationsWe greatly acknowledge the support of Martina Hutter and of the reviewers in the papers selection process of the IMIAYearbook.
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 March 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives

To summarize current excellent research in the field of patient records.

Method

Synopsis of the papers selected for the IMIA Yearbook 2007.

Results

The Electronic Patient Record encompasses a broad field of research and development. Some current research topics were selected for this IMIA Yearbook: EHR representation and communication standards, and secondary uses of clinical data for research and decision support. Four excellent papers representing the research in those fields were selected for the Patient Records section.

Conclusion

The best papers selected for this section focus on the analysis and comparison of two important clinical documents representation standards, on direct structured data entry, on the use of Natural Language Processing to detect adverse events, and on the development and evaluation of a clinical text corpus annotated for part-of-speech information.

Keywords

Medical informatics - International Medical Informatics Association - yearbook - medical records - computerized medical record systems - natural language processing
 

  • References

  • 1 Beale T. The Health Record why is it so hard?. In: Haux R, Kulikowski C. editors. IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2005. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2004: 301-4.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Nøhr C. Evaluation of Electronic Health Record Systems. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (Suppl. 01) 107-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kalra D. Electronic Health Record Standards. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (Suppl. 01) 01: 136-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ferranti JM, Musser RC, Kawamoto K, Hammond WE. The clinical document architecture and the continuity of care record: a critical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; May-Jun; 13 (03) 245-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sax U, Schmidt S. Integration of genomic data in Electronic Health Records opportunities and dilemmas. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (04) 546-50.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Los RK, van Ginneken AM, van der Lei J. OpenSDE: a strategy for expressive and flexible structured data entry. Int J Med Inform 2005; Jul; 74 (06) 481-90.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Melton GB, Hripcsak G. Automated detection of cal Informatics Manuscripts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10: 512-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pakhomov SV, Coden A, Chute CG. Developing a corpus of clinical notes manually annotated for part-ofspeech. Int J Med Inform 2006; Jun; 75 (06) 418-29.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jaspers MWM, Knaup P, Schmidt D. The Computerized Patient Record: Where Do We Stand?. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (Suppl. 01) 29-39.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Knaup P. Electronic Patient Records and their benefit for Patient Care. Methods Inf Med 2006; 45 (Suppl. 01) 40-2.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bott OJ, Ammenwerth E, Brigl B, Knaup P, Lang E, Pilgram R. et al. The challenge of ubiquitous computing in health care: technology, concepts and solutions. Findings from the IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2005. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44 (03) 473-9.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ammenwerth E, Wolff AC, Knaup P, Ulmer H, Skonetzki S, van Bemmel J. et al. Developing and Evaluating Criteria to Help Reviewers of Biomedical Informatics Manuscripts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10: 512-14.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dolin RH, Alschuler L, Boyer SL, Beebe C, Behlen FM, Biron PV. et al. HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 30-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kibbe DC, Phillips RL, Green LA. The Continuity of Care Record. Am Fam Physician 2004; 70: 1220-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Peterson MC, Holbrook JH, Von Hales D, Smith NL, Staker LV. Contributions of the history, physical examination, and laboratory investigation in making medical diagnoses. West J Med 1992; Feb; 156 (02) 163-5.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Spyns P. Natural language processing in medicine: an overview. Methods Inf Med. 1996; Dec; 35 (45) 285-301.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 OpenS DE. Available from: http://sourceforge.net/ projects/opensde.
    PubMed
  • 18 Van der Lei J. Closing the loop between clinical practice, research and education: the potential of electronic patient records. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41 (01) 51-4.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Roukema J, Los RK, Bleeker SE, van Ginneken AM, vanderLei J, Moll HA. Paperversuscomputer: feasibility of an electronic medical record in general pediatrics. Pediatrics 2006; Jan; 117 (01) 15-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Los RK, Roukema J, Van Ginneken AM, De Wilde M, Van der Lei J. Are Structured Data Structured Identically? Investigating the Uniformity of Pediatric Patient Data Recorded Using OpenSDE. Methods Inf Med 2005; 44: 631-8.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Friedman C, Alderson PO, Austin JH, Cimino JJ, Johnson SB. A general natural-language text processor for clinical radiology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994; Mar-Apr; 01 (02) 161-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marcus M, Santorini B, Marcinkiewicz MA. Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank. Linguistics 1993; 19: 297-352.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brants T. TnT a statistical part-of-speech tagger. NAACL/ANLP. 2000
    PubMedGoogle Scholar