Home Health Care Clinicians' Use of Judgment Language for Black and Hispanic Patients: Natural Language Processing Study.
cohort study
health disparity
home health care
judgment language
language barrier
natural language processing
nursing informatics
racial biases
racial difference
stigmatizing language
Journal
JMIR nursing
ISSN: 2562-7600
Titre abrégé: JMIR Nurs
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101771299
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Apr 2023
17 Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
08
09
2022
accepted:
16
03
2023
revised:
05
12
2022
medline:
18
4
2023
entrez:
17
4
2023
pubmed:
18
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A clinician's biased behavior toward patients can affect the quality of care. Recent literature reviews report on widespread implicit biases among clinicians. Although emerging studies in hospital settings show racial biases in the language used in clinical documentation within electronic health records, no studies have yet investigated the extent of judgment language in home health care. We aimed to examine racial differences in judgment language use and the relationship between judgment language use and the amount of time clinicians spent on home visits as a reflection of care quality in home health care. This study is a retrospective observational cohort study. Study data were extracted from a large urban home health care organization in the Northeastern United States. Study data set included patients (N=45,384) who received home health care services between January 1 and December 31, 2019. The study applied a natural language processing algorithm to automatically detect the language of judgment in clinical notes. The use of judgment language was observed in 38% (n=17,141) of the patients. The highest use of judgment language was found in Hispanic (7,167/66,282, 10.8% of all clinical notes), followed by Black (7,010/65,628, 10.7%), White (10,206/107,626, 9.5%), and Asian (1,756/22,548, 7.8%) patients. Black and Hispanic patients were 14% more likely to have notes with judgment language than White patients. The length of a home health care visit was reduced by 21 minutes when judgment language was used. Racial differences were identified in judgment language use. When judgment language is used, clinicians spend less time at patients' homes. Because the language clinicians use in documentation is associated with the time spent providing care, further research is needed to study the impact of using judgment language on quality of home health care. Policy, education, and clinical practice improvements are needed to address the biases behind judgment language.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A clinician's biased behavior toward patients can affect the quality of care. Recent literature reviews report on widespread implicit biases among clinicians. Although emerging studies in hospital settings show racial biases in the language used in clinical documentation within electronic health records, no studies have yet investigated the extent of judgment language in home health care.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to examine racial differences in judgment language use and the relationship between judgment language use and the amount of time clinicians spent on home visits as a reflection of care quality in home health care.
METHODS
METHODS
This study is a retrospective observational cohort study. Study data were extracted from a large urban home health care organization in the Northeastern United States. Study data set included patients (N=45,384) who received home health care services between January 1 and December 31, 2019. The study applied a natural language processing algorithm to automatically detect the language of judgment in clinical notes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The use of judgment language was observed in 38% (n=17,141) of the patients. The highest use of judgment language was found in Hispanic (7,167/66,282, 10.8% of all clinical notes), followed by Black (7,010/65,628, 10.7%), White (10,206/107,626, 9.5%), and Asian (1,756/22,548, 7.8%) patients. Black and Hispanic patients were 14% more likely to have notes with judgment language than White patients. The length of a home health care visit was reduced by 21 minutes when judgment language was used.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Racial differences were identified in judgment language use. When judgment language is used, clinicians spend less time at patients' homes. Because the language clinicians use in documentation is associated with the time spent providing care, further research is needed to study the impact of using judgment language on quality of home health care. Policy, education, and clinical practice improvements are needed to address the biases behind judgment language.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37067893
pii: v6i1e42552
doi: 10.2196/42552
pmc: PMC10152333
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e42552Informations de copyright
©Maxim Topaz, Jiyoun Song, Anahita Davoudi, Margaret McDonald, Jacquelyn Taylor, Scott Sittig, Kathryn Bowles. Originally published in JMIR Nursing (https://nursing.jmir.org), 17.04.2023.
Références
Fed Regist. ;82(9):4504-91
pubmed: 28102984
J Nurs Manag. 2019 Jul;27(5):896-917
pubmed: 30801808
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Mar 1;27(3):457-470
pubmed: 31794016
PLoS One. 2020 May 26;15(5):e0233650
pubmed: 32453771
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e2147802
pubmed: 35138405
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jul 1;4(7):e2117052
pubmed: 34259849
J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Jan;18(1):44-52
pubmed: 12534763
Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec;54 Suppl 2:1419-1430
pubmed: 31657465
Perm J. 2011 Spring;15(2):71-8
pubmed: 21841929
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Mar 19;18(6):
pubmed: 33808769
Comput Inform Nurs. 2019 Nov;37(11):583-590
pubmed: 31478922
Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Feb;41(2):203-211
pubmed: 35044842
J Clin Nurs. 2021 Dec;30(23-24):3385-3397
pubmed: 34021653
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013 May;74(5):1195-205
pubmed: 23609267
Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2016 Jul;19(4):528-542
pubmed: 27547105
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Mar 1;18(1):19
pubmed: 28249596
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011 Jun;59(6):1123-9
pubmed: 21649625
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Feb;90:103103
pubmed: 30639392
Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Nov;93(2):157-68
pubmed: 24001658
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 May;33(5):748
pubmed: 29450686
BMC Geriatr. 2021 Feb 27;21(1):145
pubmed: 33639856
Am J Nurs. 2019 Jul;119(7):36-43
pubmed: 31180913
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jun;36(6):1708-1714
pubmed: 33754318
Int J Nurs Sci. 2018 Apr 16;5(3):287-300
pubmed: 31406839
Med Care Res Rev. 2015 Dec;72(6):756-74
pubmed: 26238122
J Transcult Nurs. 2017 Nov;28(6):598-607
pubmed: 28826334
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jan 4;5(1):e2144967
pubmed: 35084481
Can J Public Health. 2022 Apr;113(2):222-226
pubmed: 35061212
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Feb;29(2):364-87
pubmed: 24002624
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019 Dec;6(6):1200-1207
pubmed: 31359384
Am J Public Health. 2015 Dec;105(12):e60-76
pubmed: 26469668
Int J Nurs Stud. 2022 Jan;125:104093
pubmed: 34710627
J Clin Nurs. 2018 Jun;27(11-12):2248-2259
pubmed: 28859254