Digital Tools Designed to Obtain the History of Present Illness From Patients: Scoping Review

• Published in: Journal of medical Internet research Vol. 24; no. 11; p. e36074
• Main Authors: Berdahl, Carl T, Henreid, Andrew J, Pevnick, Joshua M, Zheng, Kai, Nuckols, Teryl K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada Journal of Medical Internet Research 17-11-2022; Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor; JMIR Publications
• Subjects: Agreements; Caregivers; Clinical outcomes; Delivery of Health Care; Digital libraries; Efficiency; Electronic Health Records; Health aspects; Health status; Humans; Illnesses; Interruptions; Medical care; Medical conditions; Medical records; Multimedia; Patient satisfaction; Quality management; Quality of care; Review; Search strategies; Situational factors; Software; Taxonomy; Usability; human-computer interaction; informatics; anamnesis; emergency medicine; medical history taking; mobile phone
• ISSN: 1438-8871; 1439-4456; 1438-8871
• DOI: 10.2196/36074

Many medical conditions, perhaps 80% of them, can be diagnosed by taking a thorough history of present illness (HPI). However, in the clinical setting, situational factors such as interruptions and time pressure may cause interactions with patients to be brief and fragmented. One solution for improving clinicians' ability to collect a thorough HPI and maximize efficiency and quality of care could be to use a digital tool to obtain the HPI before face-to-face evaluation by a clinician.
Our objective was to identify and characterize digital tools that have been designed to obtain the HPI directly from patients or caregivers and present this information to clinicians before a face-to-face encounter. We also sought to describe outcomes reported in testing of these tools, especially those related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care.
We conducted a scoping review using predefined search terms in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevance, performed full-text reviews of articles meeting the inclusion criteria, and used a pile-sorting procedure to identify distinguishing characteristics of the tools. Information describing the tools was primarily obtained from identified peer-reviewed sources; in addition, supplementary information was obtained from tool websites and through direct communications with tool creators.
We identified 18 tools meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these 18 tools, 14 (78%) used primarily closed-ended and multiple-choice questions, 1 (6%) used free-text input, and 3 (17%) used conversational (chatbot) style. More than half (10/18, 56%) of the tools were tailored to specific patient subpopulations; the remaining (8/18, 44%) tools did not specify a target subpopulation. Of the 18 tools, 7 (39%) included multilingual support, and 12 (67%) had the capability to transfer data directly into the electronic health record. Studies of the tools reported on various outcome measures related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care.
The HPI tools we identified (N=18) varied greatly in their purpose and functionality. There was no consensus on how patient-generated information should be collected or presented to clinicians. Existing tools have undergone inconsistent levels of testing, with a wide variety of different outcome measures used in evaluation, including some related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care. There is substantial interest in using digital tools to obtain the HPI from patients, but the outcomes measured have been inconsistent. Future research should focus on whether using HPI tools can lead to improved patient experience and health outcomes, although surrogate end points could instead be used so long as patient safety is monitored.