While their value in patient care has been demonstrated in countless studies, physicians have historically adopted them with much less enthusiasm than one would expect.
While patients’ diseases, symptoms and risk factors evolve and change, the corresponding items on the electronic problem list tend to age rapidly and may soon become irrelevant or even inaccurate. For example, a certain symptom may have disappeared, or an initial diagnosis may have been further defined, making the initial description too generic to guide actual care. Additionally, as multiple specialists engage with a patient, they focus on problems that are both different and overlapping. While each provider contributes to the problem lists (from different perspectives), patient data rapidly becomes repetitive or redundant, rendering the electronic problem list less useful
to preserve detailed and expressive descriptions of patients and their stories and are commonly accepted as the best way to capture and arrange the informational background on which effective diagnostic reasoning is based.
The final output of such systems is a textual clinical note.
Consider this sentence: “The otitis media for which the patient was seen last month appears to be fully resolved.” CLU automatically and reliably assesses that the “otitis media” is “resolved” and thus should be removed from the list of current problems. Today, this action would require manual editing of the data. However, with CLU this happens automatically, with the physician confirming the deletion.