Home
Resource
Prevalence and evaluation of potential abbreviations in intensive care documentation
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(1.48 MB)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Brundage, David M.. Prevalence and evaluation of potential abbreviations in intensive care documentation. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-bmvn-yh70

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitlePrevalence and evaluation of potential abbreviations in intensive care documentation
NameBrundage, David M. (author); Srinivasan, Shankar (chair); Rutgers University; School of Health Professions
Date Created2020
Other Date2020-01 (degree)
SubjectBiomedical Informatics, MIMIC, Medical records -- Documentation -- Abbreviations
Extent1 online resource (138 pages) : illustrations
DescriptionIntroduction: Abbreviations are often used in clinical documentation to reduce time spent documenting in electronic health records and to save space during documentation. Abbreviations represent a specific challenge in healthcare as they can often contain multiple means. This ambiguous use of abbreviations is a patient safety issue for clinicians who do not properly understand the intended use of the abbreviation and presents a health literacy issue to patients as they try and understand what a provider’s note says about the care provided. Plenty of research has been done on a clinician’s ability to disambiguate abbreviations, but little work has been done to assess how clinicians are using abbreviations or creating tools to assist administrators and clinicians to explore the documentation of their providers.
Methods: A semi-supervised approach was taken to identify potential abbreviations within the MIMIC-III database. Over 400 million-word tokens were compared to a list approved abbreviation for Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital. The results of this semi-supervised identification were used to analyze the use of abbreviations and prevalence of abbreviations within the dataset.

Results: 463,175,566 raw word tokens were compared to a list of 1,742 approved abbreviations. On average, every document within MIMIC contained almost 14 abbreviation tokens, or roughly 9% of an average note is comprised of potential abbreviations. Some notes contained almost 26% of potential abbreviation tokens. The average count of potential abbreviations for a note created by an RN is 21.87, and the average count of potential abbreviations in a note created by an MD is 11.39. There is a substantial difference in the number of abbreviations used in a note by an RN and MD. MIMIC note events contain a substantial amount of abbreviations >= 5%.

Conclusion: Using the MIMIC data set we have shown that clinical abbreviations and complex clinical jargon make up a specific amount of provider documentation. 8.22% of total words within the MIMIC note events table is a term found within the Beth Israel Deaconess approved abbreviation list. We have also shown that there is the capability to replace abbreviations in medical text to provide additional context to patients.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-bmvn-yh70
LanguageEnglish
CollectionSchool of Health Professions ETD Collection
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024