Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27260476›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

How to improve vital sign data quality for use in clinical decision support systems? A qualitative study in nine Swedish emergency departments.

Niclas Skyttberg, Joana Vicente, Rong Chen, Hans Blomqvist, Sabine Koch

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Digital Health Data Quality Issues: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

5 authors.

Niclas SkyttbergCapio St Görans Hospital, 112 81, Stockholm, Sweden. Niclas.skyttberg@ki.se.
Joana VicenteHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Rong ChenHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hans BlomqvistDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sabine KochHealth Informatics Centre, Department of Learning, Informatics, Management, and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVital sign data are important for clinical decision making in emergency care. Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) have been advocated to increase patient safety and quality of care. However, the efficiency of CDSS depends on the quality of the underlying vital sign data. Therefore, possible factors affecting vital sign data quality need to be understood. This study aims to explore the factors affecting vital sign data quality in Swedish emergency departments and to determine in how far clinicians perceive vital sign data to be fit for use in clinical decision support systems. A further aim of the study is to provide recommendations on how to improve vital sign data quality in emergency departments.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen physicians and nurses from nine hospitals and vital sign documentation templates were collected and analysed. Follow-up interviews and process observations were done at three of the hospitals to verify the results. Content analysis with constant comparison of the data was used to analyse and categorize the collected data.

resultsFactors related to care process and information technology were perceived to affect vital sign data quality. Despite electronic health records (EHRs) being available in all hospitals, these were not always used for vital sign documentation. Only four out of nine sites had a completely digitalized vital sign documentation flow and paper-based triage records were perceived to provide a better mobile workflow support than EHRs. Observed documentation practices resulted in low currency, completeness, and interoperability of the vital signs. To improve vital sign data quality, we propose to standardize the care process, improve the digital documentation support, provide workflow support, ensure interoperability and perform quality control.

conclusionsVital sign data quality in Swedish emergency departments is currently not fit for use by CDSS. To address both technical and organisational challenges, we propose five steps for vital sign data quality improvement to be implemented in emergency care settings.

Indexed as

Vital SignsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalHumansQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementSwedenComputer-assisted decision makingData qualityElectronic health recordsEmergency careMedical informaticsVital signs

Identifiers

PMID27260476
PMCPMC4893236

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.