Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25954372›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014

Problem management module: an innovative system to improve problem list workflow.

Chad M Hodge, Kathryn G Kuttler, Watson A Bowes, Scott P Narus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Generalized Extraction and Classification of Span-Level Clinical Phrases.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018
    Article
  7. A Simulation Study on Handoffs and Cross-coverage: Results of an Error Analysis.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2017
    Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chad M HodgeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT ; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT.
Kathryn G KuttlerIntermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT.
Watson A BowesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT ; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT.
Scott P NarusDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT ; Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic problem lists are essential to modern health record systems, with a primary goal to serve as the repository of a patient's current health issues. Additionally, coded problems can be used to drive downstream activities such as decision support, evidence-based medicine, billing, and cohort generation for research. Meaningful Use also requires use of a coded problem list. Over the course of three years, Intermountain Healthcare developed a problem management module (PMM) that provided innovative functionality to improve clinical workflow and boost problem list adoption, e.g. smart search, user customizable views, problem evolution, and problem timelines. In 23 months of clinical use, clinicians entered over 70,000 health issues, the percentage of free-text items dropped to 1.2%, completeness of problem list items increased by 14%, and more collaborative habits were initiated.

Indexed as

Medical Records, Problem-OrientedUser-Computer InterfaceWorkflowDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHumansUtah

Identifiers

PMID25954372
PMCPMC4419930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.