Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31296211›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Clinician dashboard views and improvement in preventative health outcome measures: a retrospective analysis.

Patrick A Twohig, Jaclyn R Rivington, Douglas Gunzler, Joseph Daprano, David Margolius

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Improving High-Risk Osteoporosis Medication Adherence and Safety With an Automated Dashboard.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Advancing Newborn Screening Long-Term Follow-Up: Integration ofInternational journal of neonatal screening · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Patrick A TwohigDepartment of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth System, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA. ptwohig@metrohealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5423-8749
Jaclyn R RivingtonDepartment of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth System, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA.
Douglas GunzlerCenter for Health Care Research and Policy, Case Western Reserve University, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA.
Joseph DapranoDepartment of Medicine-Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth System, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA.
David MargoliusDepartment of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth System, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring and reporting outcome data is fundamental for health care systems to drive improvement. Our electronic health record built a dashboard that allows each primary care provider (PCP) to view real-time population health quality data of their patient panel and use that information to identify care gaps. We hypothesized that the number of dashboard views would be positively associated with clinical quality improvement.

methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of change in quality scores compared to number of dashboard views for each PCP over a five-month period (2017-18). Using the manager dashboard, we recorded the number of views for each provider. The quality scores analyzed were: colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates and diabetic patients with an A1c greater than 9% or no A1c in the past year.

resultsData from 120 PCPs were included. The number of dashboard views by each PCP ranged from 0 to 222. Thirty-one PCPs (25.8%) did not view their dashboard. We found no significant correlation between views and change in quality scores (correlation coefficient = 0.06, 95% CI [- 0.13, 0.25] and - 0.05, 95% CI [- 0.25, 0.14] for CRC and diabetes, respectively).

conclusionClinical dashboards provide feedback to PCPs and are likely to become more available as healthcare systems continue to focus on improving population health. However, dashboards on their own may not be sufficient to impact clinical quality improvement. Dashboard viewership did not appear to impact clinician performance on quality metrics.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareColorectal NeoplasmsDiabetes MellitusEarly Detection of CancerElectronic Health RecordsGlycated HemoglobinHumansPhysicians, Primary CareQuality ImprovementRetrospective StudiesGlycated HemoglobinClinical dashboardsColorectal cancerHemoglobin A1cQuality improvementScreening

Identifiers

PMID31296211
PMCPMC6621998

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.