Abstract
Introduction Planning in advance and personalised discussions on limitation of life sustaining treatment (LST) is an indicator of good care. However, there are many linguistic nuances and misunderstandings around dying in hospital as well as inaccuracy in individual-level prognostication.
Methods Using unsupervised natural language processing (NLP), we explored real-world terminology using phrase clusters with most similar sematic embeddings to “Ceiling of Treatment” and their prognostication value in the electronic health record of an urban teaching hospital.
Results Word embeddings with most similar to “Ceiling of Treatment” clustered around phrases describing end-of-life care, ceiling of care and resuscitation discussions. The phrases have differing prognostic profile with the highest 7-day mortality in the phrases most implicitly referring to end of life -“terminal care”, “end of life care” (57.5%) and “unsurvivable” (57.6%).
Conclusion NLP can quantify and analyse real-world end of life discussions around prognosis and appropriate LST.
Patient-friendly Summary (by expert patients: Sherry Charing, Alan Quarterman, Harold Parkes)
Discussions between doctors, patients and family in deciding what is the appropriate maximum treatment a specific patient should have based on their clinical condition is complex. Discussions, often involving expressions regarding “End Of Life” care are used to describe the maximum invasive treatments a patient should have or would want. There are a range of expressions used, many with overlapping meanings which can be confusing, not only for the patient and family, but also for doctors reading the patient’s clinical notes. In this study, a computational approach using Artificial Intelligence to read clinical patient notes was carried out by looking at thousands of patient records from a large urban hospital. Expressions that doctors use to describe these discussions were analysed to show the associations of particular words and phrases in relation to mortality. Using a computer analysis for this study it was possible to quantify the use of these expressions and their relation to the “End Of Life”. Through this AI-based approach, real-world use of phrases and language relating “End Of Life” can be analysed to understand how doctors and patients are communicating, and about any possible misunderstandings of language.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors have received research funding support from the Cicely Saunders Institute on Palliative Care, NIHR Applied Research Centre South London and the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre. There are no other relevant competing personal financial interests.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The project operated under London South East Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/LO/2048) approval granted to the King's Electronic Records Research Interface (KERRI); specific work on end-of-life care research was reviewed with expert patient input on a virtual committee with Caldicott Guardian oversight. Patient and public engagement was sought throughout this project with expert patients approving the projects as well as writing this article.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are not publicly available as the source data analysed is unstructured textual data, which carries risk of patient re-identification.
