Cargando…

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

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 e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Herasevich, Svetlana, Pinevich, Yuliya, Lipatov, Kirill, Barwise, Amelia K., Lindroth, Heidi L., LeMahieu, Allison M., Dong, Yue, Herasevich, Vitaly, Pickering, Brian W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10158897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37151891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000909
_version_ 1785037024760168448
author Herasevich, Svetlana
Pinevich, Yuliya
Lipatov, Kirill
Barwise, Amelia K.
Lindroth, Heidi L.
LeMahieu, Allison M.
Dong, Yue
Herasevich, Vitaly
Pickering, Brian W.
author_facet Herasevich, Svetlana
Pinevich, Yuliya
Lipatov, Kirill
Barwise, Amelia K.
Lindroth, Heidi L.
LeMahieu, Allison M.
Dong, Yue
Herasevich, Vitaly
Pickering, Brian W.
author_sort Herasevich, Svetlana
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10158897
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101588972023-05-05 Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study Herasevich, Svetlana Pinevich, Yuliya Lipatov, Kirill Barwise, Amelia K. Lindroth, Heidi L. LeMahieu, Allison M. Dong, Yue Herasevich, Vitaly Pickering, Brian W. Crit Care Explor Original Clinical Report 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. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-05-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10158897/ /pubmed/37151891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000909 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Clinical Report
Herasevich, Svetlana
Pinevich, Yuliya
Lipatov, Kirill
Barwise, Amelia K.
Lindroth, Heidi L.
LeMahieu, Allison M.
Dong, Yue
Herasevich, Vitaly
Pickering, Brian W.
Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study
title Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study
title_full Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study
title_short Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study
title_sort evaluation of digital health strategy to support clinician-led critically ill patient population management: a randomized crossover study
topic Original Clinical Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10158897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37151891
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000909
work_keys_str_mv AT herasevichsvetlana evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT pinevichyuliya evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT lipatovkirill evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT barwiseameliak evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT lindrothheidil evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT lemahieuallisonm evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT dongyue evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT herasevichvitaly evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy
AT pickeringbrianw evaluationofdigitalhealthstrategytosupportclinicianledcriticallyillpatientpopulationmanagementarandomizedcrossoverstudy