Observational studyCritical care medicine2019
Data Omission by Physician Trainees on ICU Rounds.
Observational study in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Growing Use of Copy-Paste and Its Impact on Creation and Propagation of Documentation Errors.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Tailoring Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Ambient Scribes for Intensive Care Unit Rounds: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Association of Sociodemographic Factors With Overtriage, Undertriage, and Value of Care After Major Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024Article
- Using ChatGPT-4 to Create Structured Medical Notes From Audio Recordings of Physician-Patient Encounters: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Examining Pediatric Resident Electronic Health Records Use During Prerounding: Mixed Methods Observational Study.JMIR medical education · 2023Article
- Usability challenges with electronic health records (EHRs) during prerounding on pediatric inpatients.JAMIA open · 2022Article
- The Next-Generation Electronic Health Record in the ICU: A Focus on User-Technology Interface to Optimize Patient Safety and Quality.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Design, Implementation, Utilization, and Sustainability of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources-Based Inpatient Rounding List.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Evaluating Electronic Health Record Limitations and Time Expenditure in a German Medical Center.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Why Is the Electronic Health Record So Challenging for Research and Clinical Care?Methods of information in medicine · 2021Article
- Factors Associated With Parental Participation in Family-Centered Rounds.Hospital pediatrics · 2021Article
- [Laboratory testing in intensive care medicine].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Surgical Decision-making.JAMA surgery · 2020Review
- Using machine learning to selectively highlight patient information.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2019Article
- A Standardized Approach to Reduce Fluid Overload in Critically Ill Children.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIncomplete patient data, either due to difficulty gathering and synthesizing or inappropriate data filtering, can lead clinicians to misdiagnosis and medical error. How completely ICU interprofessional rounding teams appraise the patient data set that informs clinical decision-making is unknown. This study measures how frequently physician trainees omit data from prerounding notes ("artifacts") and verbal presentations during daily rounds.
designObservational study.
settingTertiary academic medical ICU with an established electronic health record and where physician trainees are the primary presenters during daily rounds. SUBJECTS: Presenters (medical student or resident physician), interprofessional rounding team.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsWe quantified the amount and types of patient data omitted from photocopies of physician trainees' artifacts and audio recordings of oral ICU rounds presentations when compared with source electronic health record data. An audit of 157 patient presentations including 6,055 data elements across nine domains revealed 100% of presentations contained omissions. Overall, 22.9% of data were missing from artifacts and 42.4% from presentations. The interprofessional team supplemented only 4.1% of additional available data. Frequency of trainee data omission varied by data type and sociotechnical factors. The strongest predictor of trainee verbal omissions was a preceding failure to include the data on the artifact. Passive data gathering via electronic health record macros resulted in extremely complete artifacts but paradoxically predicted greater likelihood of verbal omission when compared with manual notation. Interns verbally omitted the most data, whereas medical students omitted the least.
conclusionsIn an academic rounding model reliant on trainees to preview and select data for presentation during ICU rounds, verbal appraisal of patient data was highly incomplete. Additional trainee oversight and education, improved electronic health record tools, and novel academic rounding paradigms are needed to address this potential source of medical error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.