Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27655323›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2017

Accuracy of Laboratory Data Communication on ICU Daily Rounds Using an Electronic Health Record.

Kathryn A Artis, Edward Dyer, Vishnu Mohan, Jeffrey A Gold

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04845698 (Application of i-Dashboard for Multi-disciplinary Rounds in Surgical Intensive Care Units), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04845698 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Application of i-Dashboard for Multi-disciplinary Rounds in Surgical Intensive Care Units

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Cheng-Kung University HospitalRan2021 to 2021Enrolled144ConditionsWorkflow, Communication, Quality of Health CareArmsi-Dashboard
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Measuring the rate of manual transcription error in outpatient point-of-care testing.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kathryn A Artis1Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 2Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Hospital and Specialty Care, Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Portland, OR. 3Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Edward Dyer
Vishnu Mohan
Jeffrey A Gold

Funding

EHR solutions for accurate reporting of data on interprofessional ICU roundsR01HS023793 · AHRQ · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI GOLD, JEFFREY A. · 2015 to 2019
$2.4M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS023793
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAccurately communicating patient data during daily ICU rounds is critically important since data provide the basis for clinical decision making. Despite its importance, high fidelity data communication during interprofessional ICU rounds is assumed, yet unproven. We created a robust but simple methodology to measure the prevalence of inaccurately communicated (misrepresented) data and to characterize data communication failures by type. We also assessed how commonly the rounding team detected data misrepresentation and whether data communication was impacted by environmental, human, and workflow factors.

designDirect observation of verbalized laboratory data during daily ICU rounds compared with data within the electronic health record and on presenters' paper prerounding notes.

settingTwenty-six-bed academic medical ICU with a well-established electronic health record. SUBJECTS: ICU rounds presenter (medical student or resident physician), interprofessional rounding team.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsDuring 301 observed patient presentations including 4,945 audited laboratory results, presenters used a paper prerounding tool for 94.3% of presentations but tools contained only 78% of available electronic health record laboratory data. Ninty-six percent of patient presentations included at least one laboratory misrepresentation (mean, 6.3 per patient) and 38.9% of all audited laboratory data were inaccurately communicated. Most misrepresentation events were omissions. Only 7.8% of all laboratory misrepresentations were detected.

conclusionDespite a structured interprofessional rounding script and a well-established electronic health record, clinician laboratory data retrieval and communication during ICU rounds at our institution was poor, prone to omissions and inaccuracies, yet largely unrecognized by the rounding team. This highlights an important patient safety issue that is likely widely prevalent, yet underrecognized.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesCommunicationElectronic Health RecordsTeaching RoundsHumansIntensive Care UnitsInterprofessional RelationsPatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID27655323
PMCPMC5228604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.