Dismiss
InnovationQ will be updated on Sunday, Oct. 22, from 10am ET - noon. You may experience brief service interruptions during that time.
Browse Prior Art Database

Enhanced Patient History

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000247241D
Publication Date: 2016-Aug-17
Document File: 2 page(s) / 67K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

Disclosed is a method to provide an enhanced presentation of patient history with the inclusion of non-imaging data and better clinical relevancy screening/organization.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 51% of the total text.

Page 01 of 2

Enhanced Patient History

Patient history in the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) is only an imaging procedure list with "mild" relevancy categorization. Imaging studies and reports can be browsed; however, the relevancy categorization is poor and lab and pathology results are lacking. Cardio only shows a list of cardiology studies for the patient; radiology studies are purposely filtered out.

The novel contribution is a method to provide an enhanced presentation of patient history with the inclusion of non-imaging data and better clinical relevancy screening/organization.

The method automates the analysis process, in which the reader must scan through the impressions of many reports for prior comparison selection. It also automates the initial Hanging Protocol (HP) display of relevant prior comparisons. The system can suggest additional comparisons based on the current report impressions as the reports are dictated/entered. This could include segmentation and linking of similar anatomical features (e.g., mass, lesion, stenosis, etc.), even though there may not have been prior measurements recorded or annotations saved. Segmented items are highlighted both in the image and suggested linked prior report narrative references presented (e.g., 3cm mass on right kidney), and are noted in the report with the segmented object,

which may or may not match but can easily be added to the lesion/tumor tracking history. Additionally the use of a contrast agent and its uptake (e.g. prior mass was enhancing or not) is often a useful criteria as many tumors / cancerous lesions can be differentiated from benign lesions by their uptake and washout of contrast agents. When evaluating a current tumor or lesion it is often most helpful to compare to previous studies where a contrast agent was utilized. Unfortunately, conventional study descriptions are poor at disclosing the use of a contrast agent

Accurate determination of prior comparison study relevancy is growing in importance as

a patient's medical record grows. Past relevancy schemes had inherent assumptions of the number of potential priors (handful to dozens). Now, patients have hundreds of prior studies or visit episodes. Many are not relevant prior episodes. For example, a current heart problem versus a healing clavicle fracture from three years prior, would

otherwise be grouped based on current simple anatomical region mapping. The problem might be of a similar body part but wrong laterality (e.g., right h...