Citations

Abstract Background The amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR). Methods Data are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Study Eligibility Criteria Peer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021. Participants All physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods A narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Results Out of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity. Conclusion This systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.

ABSTRACT Objectives The objectives of this study were to test in real time a Trauma Triage, Treatment, and Training Decision Support (4TDS) machine learning (ML) model of shock detection in a prospective silent trial, and to evaluate specificity, sensitivity, and other estimates of diagnostic performance compared to the gold standard of electronic medical records (EMRs) review. Design We performed a single-center diagnostic performance study. Patients and setting A prospective cohort consisted of consecutive patients aged 18 years and older who were admitted from May 1 through September 30, 2020 to six Mayo Clinic intensive care units (ICUs) and five progressive care units. Measurements and main results During the study time, 5,384 out of 6,630 hospital admissions were eligible. During the same period, the 4TDS shock model sent 825 alerts and 632 were eligible. Among 632 hospital admissions with alerts, 287 were screened positive and 345 were negative. Among 4,752 hospital admissions without alerts, 78 were screened positive and 4,674 were negative. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the 4TDS shock model was 0.86 (95% CI 0.85-0.87%). The 4TDS shock model demonstrated a sensitivity of 78.6% (95% CI 74.1-82.7%) and a specificity of 93.1% (95% CI 92.4-93.8%). The model showed a positive predictive value of 45.4% (95% CI 42.6-48.3%) and a negative predictive value of 98.4% (95% CI 98-98.6%). Conclusions We successfully validated an ML model to detect circulatory shock in a prospective observational study. The model used only vital signs and showed moderate performance compared to the gold standard of clinician EMR review when applied to an ICU patient cohort.

Objectives Diagnostic error and delay is a prevalent and impactful problem. This study was part of a mixed-methods approach to understand the organizational, clinician, and patient factors contributing to diagnostic error and delay among acutely ill patients within a health system, as well as recommendations for the development of tailored, targeted, feasible, and effective interventions. Methods We did a multisite qualitative study using focus group methodology to explore the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders. We used a conceptual framework that characterized diagnostic error and delay as occurring within 1 of 3 stages of the patient’s diagnostic journey—critical information gathering, synthesis of key information, and decision making and communication. We developed our moderator guide based on the sociotechnical frameworks previously described by Holden and Singh for understanding noncognitive factors that lead to diagnostic error and delay. Deidentified focus group transcripts were coded in triplicate and to consensus over a series of meetings. A final coded data set was then uploaded into NVivo software. The data were then analyzed to generate overarching themes and categories. Results We recruited a total of 64 participants across 4 sites from emergency departments, hospital floor, and intensive care unit settings into 11 focus groups. Clinicians perceive that diverse organizational, communication and coordination, individual clinician, and patient factors interact to impede the process of making timely and accurate diagnoses. Conclusions This study highlights the complex sociotechnical system within which individual clinicians operate and the contributions of systems, processes, and institutional factors to diagnostic error and delay.

Objectives This study aimed to explore clinicians’ perceptions of the occurrence of and factors associated with diagnostic errors in patients evaluated during a rapid response team (RRT) activation or unplanned admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A multicenter prospective survey study was conducted among multiprofessional clinicians involved in the care of patients with RRT activations and/or unplanned ICU admissions (UIAs) at 2 academic hospitals and 1 community-based hospital between April 2019 and March 2020. A study investigator screened eligible patients every day. Within 24 hours of the event, a research coordinator administered the survey to clinicians, who were asked the following: whether diagnostic errors contributed to the reason for RRT/UIA, whether any new diagnosis was made after RRT/UIA, if there were any failures to communicate the diagnosis, and if involvement of specialists earlier would have benefited that patient. Patient clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record. Results A total of 1815 patients experienced RRT activations, and 1024 patients experienced UIA. Clinicians reported that 18.2% (95/522) of patients experienced diagnostic errors, 8.0% (42/522) experienced a failure of communication, and 16.7% (87/522) may have benefitted from earlier involvement of specialists. Compared with academic settings, clinicians in the community hospital were less likely to report diagnostic errors (7.0% versus 22.8%, P = 0.002). Conclusions Clinicians report a high rate of diagnostic errors in patients they evaluate during RRT or UIAs.

ABSTRACT Introduction The emergence of more complex Prolonged Field Care in austere settings and the need to assist inexperienced providers’ ability to treat patients create an urgent need for effective tools to support care. We report on a project to develop a phone-/tablet-based decision support system for prehospital tactical combat casualty care that collects physiologic and other clinical data and uses machine learning to detect and differentiate shock manifestation. Materials and Methods Software interface development methods included literature review, rapid prototyping, and subject matter expert design requirements reviews. Machine learning algorithm methods included development of a model trained on publicly available Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care data, then on de-identified data from Mayo Clinic Intensive Care Unit. Results The project team interviewed 17 Army, Air Force, and Navy medical subject matter experts during design requirements review sessions. They had an average of 17 years of service in military medicine and an average of 4 deployments apiece and all had performed tactical combat casualty care on live patients during deployment. Comments provided requirements for shock identification and management in prehospital settings, including support for indication of shock probability and shock differentiation. The machine learning algorithm based on logistic regression performed best among other algorithms we tested and was able to predict shock onset 90 minutes before it occurred with better than 75% accuracy in the test dataset. Conclusions We expect the Trauma Triage, Treatment, and Training Decision Support system will augment a medic’s ability to make informed decisions based on salient patient data and to diagnose multiple types of shock through remotely trained, field deployed ML models.

Abstract Background Although diagnostic error (DE) is a significant problem, it remains challenging for clinicians to identify it reliably and to recognize its contribution to the clinical trajectory of their patients. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the reliability of real-time electronic health record (EHR) reviews using a search strategy for the identification of DE as a contributor to the rapid response team (RRT) activation. Objectives Early and accurate recognition of critical illness is of paramount importance. The objective of this study was to test the feasibility and reliability of prospective, real-time EHR reviews as a means of identification of DE. Methods We conducted this prospective observational study in June 2019 and included consecutive adult patients experiencing their first RRT activation. An EHR search strategy and a standard operating procedure were refined based on the literature and expert clinician inputs. Two physician-investigators independently reviewed eligible patient EHRs for the evidence of DE within 24 hours after RRT activation. In cases of disagreement, a secondary review of the EHR using a taxonomy approach was applied. The reviewers categorized patient experience of DE as Yes/No/Uncertain. Results We reviewed 112 patient records. DE was identified in 15% of cases by both reviewers. Kappa agreement with the initial review was 0.23 and with the secondary review 0.65. No evidence of DE was detected in 60% of patients. In 25% of cases, the reviewers could not determine whether DE was present or absent. Conclusion EHR review is of limited value in the real-time identification of DE in hospitalized patients. Alternative approaches are needed for research and quality improvement efforts in this field.