Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26459258›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

A user needs assessment to inform health information exchange design and implementation.

Alexandra T Strauss, Diego A Martinez, Andres Garcia-Arce, Stephanie Taylor, Candice Mateja, Peter J Fabri, Jose L Zayas-Castro

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Using Health Forum Data to Assess User Needs for mHealth App Development: A Feasibility Study on Alzheimer's Disease.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra T StraussDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. astrauss@health.usf.edu.
Diego A MartinezJohns Hopkins Department of Emergency Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Andres Garcia-ArceDepartment of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Stephanie TaylorDepartment of Internal Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Candice MatejaDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Peter J FabriDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Jose L Zayas-CastroDepartment of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
University of South Florida · USCarolinas Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImportant barriers for widespread use of health information exchange (HIE) are usability and interface issues. However, most HIEs are implemented without performing a needs assessment with the end users, healthcare providers. We performed a user needs assessment for the process of obtaining clinical information from other health care organizations about a hospitalized patient and identified the types of information most valued for medical decision-making.

methodsQuantitative and qualitative analysis were used to evaluate the process to obtain and use outside clinical information (OI) using semi-structured interviews (16 internists), direct observation (750 h), and operational data from the electronic medical records (30,461 hospitalizations) of an internal medicine department in a public, teaching hospital in Tampa, Florida.

results13.7 % of hospitalizations generate at least one request for OI. On average, the process comprised 13 steps, 6 decisions points, and 4 different participants. Physicians estimate that the average time to receive OI is 18 h. Physicians perceived that OI received is not useful 33-66 % of the time because information received is irrelevant or not timely. Technical barriers to OI use included poor accessibility and ineffective information visualization. Common problems with the process were receiving extraneous notes and the need to re-request the information. Drivers for OI use were to trend lab or imaging abnormalities, understand medical history of critically ill or hospital-to-hospital transferred patients, and assess previous echocardiograms and bacterial cultures. About 85 % of the physicians believe HIE would have a positive effect on improving healthcare delivery.

conclusionsAlthough hospitalists are challenged by a complex process to obtain OI, they recognize the value of specific information for enhancing medical decision-making. HIE systems are likely to have increased utilization and effectiveness if specific patient-level clinical information is delivered at the right time to the right users.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingHealth Information ExchangeHealth PersonnelMedical Informatics ApplicationsNeeds AssessmentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26459258
PMCPMC4603345
OpenAlexW1927209561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.