Cargando…
Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
AIM: To determine clinical scores important for automated calculation in the inpatient setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi methodology was used to create consensus of important clinical scores for inpatient practice. A list of 176 externally validated clinical scores were identified from freely avai...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366935/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28396846 http://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v7.i1.16 |
Sumario: | AIM: To determine clinical scores important for automated calculation in the inpatient setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi methodology was used to create consensus of important clinical scores for inpatient practice. A list of 176 externally validated clinical scores were identified from freely available internet-based services frequently used by clinicians. Scores were categorized based on pertinent specialty and a customized survey was created for each clinician specialty group. Clinicians were asked to rank each score based on importance of automated calculation to their clinical practice in three categories - “not important”, “nice to have”, or “very important”. Surveys were solicited via specialty-group listserv over a 3-mo interval. Respondents must have been practicing physicians with more than 20% clinical time spent in the inpatient setting. Within each specialty, consensus was established for any clinical score with greater than 70% of responses in a single category and a minimum of 10 responses. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of automation importance. RESULTS: Seventy-nine divided by one hundred and forty-four (54.9%) surveys were completed and 72/144 (50%) surveys were completed by eligible respondents. Only the critical care and internal medicine specialties surpassed the 10-respondent threshold (14 respondents each). For internists, 2/110 (1.8%) of scores were “very important” and 73/110 (66.4%) were “nice to have”. For intensivists, no scores were “very important” and 26/76 (34.2%) were “nice to have”. Only the number of medical history (OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.26-4.67; P < 0.05) and vital sign (OR = 1.88; 95%CI: 1.03-3.68; P < 0.05) variables for clinical scores used by internists was predictive of desire for automation. CONCLUSION: Few clinical scores were deemed “very important” for automated calculation. Future efforts towards score calculator automation should focus on technically feasible “nice to have” scores. |
---|