| Popis: |
Practice-Based Learning and Improvement, a core competency identified by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, carries importance throughout a physician's career. Practice-Based Learning and Improvement is cultivated by a critical review of complications, yet methods to accurately identify complications are inadequate. Machine-learning algorithms show promise in improving identification of complications. We compare a manual-supplemented natural language processing (ms-NLP) methodology against a validated electronic morbidity and mortality (MM) database, the Morbidity and Mortality Adverse Event Reporting System (MARS) to understand the utility of NLP in MM review.The number and severity of complications were compared between MARS and ms-NLP of surgical hospitalization discharge summaries among three academic medical centers. Clavien-Dindo (CD) scores were assigned to cases with identified complications and classified into minor (CD I-II) or major (CD III-IV) harm.Of 7774 admissions, 987 cases were identified to have 1659 complications by MARS and 1296 by ms-NLP. MARS identified 611 (62%) cases, whereas ms-NLP identified 670 (68%) cases. Less than one-third of cases (299, 30.3%) were detected by both methods. MARS identified a greater number of complications with major harm (457, 46.30%) than did ms-NLP (P 0.0001).Both a prospectively maintained MM database and ms-NLP review of discharge summaries fail to identify a significant proportion of postoperative complications and overlap 1/3 of the time. ms-NLP more frequently identifies cases with minor complications, whereas prospective voluntary reporting more frequently identifies major complications. The educational benefit of reporting and analysis of complication data may be supplemented by ms-NLP but not replaced by it at this time. |
Full Text from ScienceDirect