Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28346243›Full record

Observational studyComputers, informatics, nursing : CIN2017

Modeling Flowsheet Data to Support Secondary Use.

Bonnie L Westra, Beverly Christie, Steven G Johnson, Lisiane Pruinelli, Anne LaFlamme, Suzan G Sherman, Jung In Park, Connie W Delaney, Grace Gao, Stuart Speedie

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EHR Documentation Frequency Changes Across the COVID-19 Pandemic.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. 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

10 authors.

Bonnie L WestraAuthor Affiliations: School of Nursing (Drs Westra, Johnson, Pruinelli, Park, Delaney, and Gao) and Institute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota (Drs Westra, Delaney, and Speedie); Fairview Health Services & University of Minnesota Health (Drs Christie, LaFlamme, and Sherman), Minneapolis, MN.
Beverly Christie
Steven G Johnson
Lisiane Pruinelli
Anne LaFlamme
Suzan G Sherman
Jung In Park
Connie W Delaney
Grace Gao
Stuart Speedie

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)UL1TR000114 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R · 2012 to 2015
$35.0M
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE INSTITUTE (UMN CTSI)UL1RR033183 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R · 2011 to 2011
$8.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000114NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR033183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to create information models from flowsheet data using a data-driven consensus-based method. Electronic health records contain a large volume of data about patient assessments and interventions captured in flowsheets that measure the same "thing," but the names of these observations often differ, according to who performs documentation or the location of the service (eg, pulse rate in an intensive care, the emergency department, or a surgical unit documented by a nurse or therapist or captured by automated monitoring). Flowsheet data are challenging for secondary use because of the existence of multiple semantically equivalent measures representing the same concepts. Ten information models were created in this study: five related to quality measures (falls, pressure ulcers, venous thromboembolism, genitourinary system including catheter-associated urinary tract infection, and pain management) and five high-volume physiological systems: cardiac, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, respiratory, and expanded vital signs/anthropometrics. The value of the information models is that flowsheet data can be extracted and mapped for semantically comparable flowsheet measures from a clinical data repository regardless of the time frame, discipline, or setting in which documentation occurred. The 10 information models simplify the representation of the content in flowsheet data, reducing 1552 source measures to 557 concepts. The amount of representational reduction ranges from 3% for falls to 78% for the respiratory system. The information models provide a foundation for including nursing and interprofessional assessments and interventions in common data models, to support research within and across health systems.

Indexed as

Nursing InformaticsDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansRetrospective StudiesSoftware Design

Identifiers

PMID28346243
PMCPMC5591037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.