ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2018
Process Driven Guidance for Complex Surgical Procedures.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Dynamic Changes in Cognitive Workload During Cardiac Surgery Perfusionists' Interactions With the Cardiopulmonary Bypass Pump.Human factors · 2021Article
- Digital Cognitive Aids to Support Adaptation of Surgical Processes to COVID-19 Protective Policies.IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA) · 2020Article
- Checklist Design Reconsidered: Understanding Checklist Compliance and Timing of Interactions.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2020Article
- Cognitive Engineering to Improve Patient Safety and Outcomes in Cardiothoracic Surgery.Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgeryReview
- A Coding Framework for Usability Evaluation of Digital Health Technologies.Human-Computer Interaction. Theoretical Approaches and Design Methods : Thematic Area, HCI 2022, Held as Part of the 24th HCI International Conference, HCII 2022, Virtual Event, June 26-July 1, 2022, Proceedings, Part IArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surgical team processes are known to be complex and error prone. This paper describes an approach that uses a detailed, validated model of a medical process to provide the clinicians who carry out that complex process with offline and online guidance to help reduce errors. Offline guidance is in the form of a hypertext document describing all the ways the process can be carried out. Online guidance is in the form of a context-sensitive and continually updated electronic "checklist" that lists next steps and needed resources, as well as completed steps. In earlier work, we focused on providing such guidance for single-clinician or single-team processes. This paper describes guiding the collaboration of multiple teams of clinicians through complex processes with significant concurrency, complicated exception handling, and precise and timely communication. We illustrate this approach by applying it to a highly complex, high risk subprocess of cardiac surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30815055PMC6371362What 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.