Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Computer-generated vs. physician-documented history of present illness (HPI): results of a blinded comparison
Christopher V Almario1, William Chey2, Aung Kaung3
11] Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA [2] Division of Gastroenterology, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA [3] Division of Digestive Diseases, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA [4] Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Los Angeles, California, USA.
Objectives:
Healthcare delivery now mandates shorter visits with higher documentation requirements, undermining the patient-provider interaction. To improve clinic visit efficiency, we developed a patient-provider portal that systematically collects patient symptoms using a computer algorithm called Automated Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Symptoms (AEGIS). AEGIS also automatically "translates" the patient report into a full narrative history of present illness (HPI). We aimed to compare the quality of computer-generated vs. physician-documented HPIs.
Methods:
We performed a cross-sectional study with a paired sample design among individuals visiting outpatient adult gastrointestinal (GI) clinics for evaluation of active GI symptoms. Participants first underwent usual care and then subsequently completed AEGIS. Each individual thereby had both a physician-documented and a computer-generated HPI. Forty-eight blinded physicians assessed HPI quality across six domains using 5-point scales: (i) overall impression, (ii) thoroughness, (iii) usefulness, (iv) organization, (v) succinctness, and (vi) comprehensibility. We compared HPI scores within patient using a repeated measures model.
Results:
Seventy-five patients had both computer-generated and physician-documented HPIs. The mean overall impression score for computer-generated HPIs was higher than physician HPIs (3.68 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), even after adjusting for physician and visit type, location, mode of transcription, and demographics. Computer-generated HPIs were also judged more complete (3.70 vs. 2.73; P<0.001), more useful (3.82 vs. 3.04; P<0.001), better organized (3.66 vs. 2.80; P<0.001), more succinct (3.55 vs. 3.17; P<0.001), and more comprehensible (3.66 vs. 2.97; P<0.001).
Conclusions:
Computer-generated HPIs were of higher overall quality, better organized, and more succinct, comprehensible, complete, and useful compared with HPIs written by physicians during usual care in GI clinics.
More Related Videos
02:28Author Spotlight: Self-Assessment Protocol for Predicting Psoriatic Arthritis in Psoriasis Patients
Published on: March 1, 2024
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation II: POMR
Methods of Documentation III: PIE
Data Collection II
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Blind Procedures
Purpose of Health Records II