Computer-generated structured electronic medical records are preferable to conventional medical records for patients with acute abdominal pain - a prospective, double-blinded study

• Published in: Journal of medical systems Vol. 46; no. 10; p. 63
• Main Authors: Saaristo, Leena, Ukkonen, Mika T., Wirta, Erkki-Ville, Kotaluoto, Sannamari, Lammi, Matleena, Laukkarinen, Johanna M., Pauniaho, Satu-Liisa K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 26-08-2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Access control; Electronic health records; Electronic medical records; Emergency medical care; Emergency medical services; Health Informatics; Health Sciences; Medical records; Medical research; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Natural language (computers); Pain; Patient Facing Systems; Patients; Physical examinations; Physicians; Quality assessment; Quality control; Recording; Statistics for Life Sciences; Medical records; Abdominal pain; Medical Records Systems, Computerized; Quality of Health Care
• ISSN: 1573-689X; 0148-5598; 1573-689X
• DOI: 10.1007/s10916-022-01852-w

Objectives
Structured medical records improve readability and ensure the inclusion of information necessary for correct diagnosis and treatment. This is the first study to assess the quality of computer-generated structured medical records by comparing them to conventional medical records on patients with acute abdominal pain.
Materials and methods
A prospective double-blinded study was conducted in a tertiary referral center emergency department between January 2018 and June 2018. Patients were examined by emergency department physicians and by experience and inexperienced researcher. The researchers used a new electronical medical records system, which gathered data during the examination and the system generate structured medical records containing natural language. Conventional medical records dictated by physician and computer-generated medical records were compared by a group of independent clinicians.
Results
Ninety-nine patients were included. The overall quality of the computer-generated medical records was better than the quality of conventional human-generated medical records – the structure was similar or better in 99% of cases and the readability was similar or better in 86% of cases, p < 0.001. The quality of medical history, current illness, and findings of physical examinations were likewise better with the computer-generated recording. The results were similar when patients were examined by experienced or inexperienced researcher using the computer-generated recording.
Discussion
The quality of computer-generated structured medical records was superior to that of conventional medical records. The quality remained similar regardless of the researcher’s level of experience. The system allows automatic risk scoring and easy access for quality control of patient care. We therefore consider that it would be useful in wider practice.