Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study.

Svetlana Herasevich, Yuliya Pinevich, Kirill Lipatov, Amelia K Barwise, Heidi L Lindroth, Allison M LeMahieu, Yue Dong, Vitaly Herasevich, Brian W Pickering
{"title":"Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study.","authors":"Svetlana Herasevich,&nbsp;Yuliya Pinevich,&nbsp;Kirill Lipatov,&nbsp;Amelia K Barwise,&nbsp;Heidi L Lindroth,&nbsp;Allison M LeMahieu,&nbsp;Yue Dong,&nbsp;Vitaly Herasevich,&nbsp;Brian W Pickering","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single center randomized crossover study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Quaternary care academic hospital.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>AMP.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments-the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7-10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (-6.11; 95% CI, -7.91 to -4.30 min and -5.38; 95% CI, -7.56 to -3.20 min, respectively; <i>p</i> < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.54 min; <i>p</i> = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, -32.7 to -12.4 points; <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.30; <i>p</i> = 0.078).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians' performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 5","pages":"e0909"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/07/cc9-5-e0909.PMC10158897.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR).

Design: Single center randomized crossover study.

Setting: Quaternary care academic hospital.

Subjects: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers.

Interventions: AMP.

Measurements and main results: We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments-the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7-10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (-6.11; 95% CI, -7.91 to -4.30 min and -5.38; 95% CI, -7.56 to -3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, -32.7 to -12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.30; p = 0.078).

Conclusions: When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians' performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估支持临床医生主导的危重病人群体管理的数字健康策略:一项随机交叉研究。
研究与广泛使用的商业电子病历(EMR)相比,在了解临床医生信息和流程要求的基础上创建的新型急性护理多患者查看器(AMP)是否可以减少临床医生对急性患者群体的临床决策时间。设计:单中心随机交叉研究。单位:四级护理学术医院。对象:参加和正在培训的重症监护医生,以及高级实践提供者。测量和主要结果:我们比较了ICU临床医生在结构化临床任务完成方面的表现,使用两种电子环境——标准的商业EMR (Epic)和除了Epic之外的新型AMP。20名受试者(10对临床医生)参与本研究。在研究期间,每位参与者完成了两个icu(每个7-10个床位)和8个个体患者的任务。与标准商业EMR相比,使用AMP评估整个ICU的调整时间和完成任务的调整总时间显着降低(-6.11;95% CI, -7.91 ~ -4.30 min和-5.38;95% CI分别为-7.56 ~ -3.20 min;P < 0.001)。使用EMR和AMP评估个体患者的调整时间相似(0.73;95% CI, -0.09 ~ 1.54 min;P = 0.078)。与标准EMR相比,AMP与执行任务的临床医生的调整任务负荷(美国国家航空航天局-任务负荷指数)显着降低相关(22.6;95% CI, -32.7 ~ -12.4点;P < 0.001)。两种环境的校正总误差比较,差异无统计学意义(0.68;95% ci, 0.36-1.30;P = 0.078)。结论:与标准EMR相比,AMP显著缩短了整个ICU的评估时间、完成临床任务的总时间和临床医生的任务负荷。需要进一步的研究来评估临床医生在ICU现场使用AMP时的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信