Abstract
Objective The objective of this study is to determine demographic and diagnostic distributions of physical pain recorded in the clinical notes of a mental health electronic health records database by utilising natural language processing and to examine the level of overlap in recorded physical pain between primary and secondary care.
Design, Setting and Participants The data were extracted from an anonymised version of the electronic health records from a large mental community and secondary healthcare provider serving a catchment of 1.3M residents in south London. These included patients under active referral and aged 18+ at the index date of July 1, 2018, and had at least one clinical document (>=30 characters) associated with their record between July 1, 2017 and July 1, 2019. This cohort was compared to linked primary care records from one of the four catchment boroughs.
Outcome The primary outcome of interest was the presence or absence of recorded physical pain within the clinical notes of the patients. This does not include mental, psychological or metaphorical pain.
Results A total of 27,211 patients were retrieved based on the extraction criteria. Of these, 52% (14,202) had narrative text containing relevant mentions of physical pain. Patients who were older (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.15-1.19), female (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.35-1.49), of Asian (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45) or Black (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.40-1.59) ethnicities, and living in deprived neighbourhoods (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.55-1.73) showed higher odds of recorded pain. Patients with an SMI diagnosis were found to be less likely to report pain (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.41-0.46, p<0.001). When comparing the overlap between primary and secondary care, 17% of the CRIS cohort also had records within LDN, and 31% of these had recorded pain in both records.
Conclusion The findings of this study show the sociodemographic and diagnostic differences in recorded pain, and have significant implications for the assessment and management of physical pain in patients with mental health disorders.
Strengths and Limitations of this study
This study utilises natural language processing on clinical notes to access a large sample with information about pain.
This is the first cross-sectional study to summarise and describe the distribution of recorded pain within the clinical notes of mental health records.
The recorded mentions of pain within clinical notes clearly depend on the patient sharing and the clinician recording their experiences.
The findings are not generalisable to the general population since this study only looks at patients receiving mental healthcare within a specific geographic catchment.
Competing Interest Statement
RS declared research support received in the last 36 months from Janssen, GSK and Takeda. All other authors declare no other competing interests.
Funding Statement
AR is funded by Health Data Research UK, an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the devolved administrations, and leading medical research charities. RS is part-funded by i) the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London; ii) the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust; iii) the DATAMIND HDR UK Mental Health Data Hub (MRC grant MR/W014386); iv) the UK Prevention Research Partnership (Violence, Health and Society; MR-VO49879/1), an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation Councils, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the UK devolved administrations, and leading health research charities. JC is supported by the KCL-funded Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) in Data-Driven Health. The funders were not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
This paper represents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
This work uses data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. An application for access to the Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) database for this project was submitted and approved by the CRIS Oversight Committee. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Ruimin Ma for her help in obtaining the LDN codes.
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:
Clinical Records Information System and its associated linkages has received ethical approval as a data resource for secondary analysis from the Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (reference 23/SC/0257).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
