ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
Mobile Clinical Decision Tools Among Emergency Department Clinicians: Web-Based Survey and Analytic Data for Evaluation of The Ottawa Rules App.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Methods used to evaluate usability of mobile clinical decision support systems for healthcare emergencies: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.JAMIA open · 2023Review
- Evaluation of an ARF diagnosis calculator: a survey and content analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Designing a Novel Clinician Decision Support Tool for the Management of Acute Diarrhea in Bangladesh: Formative Qualitative Study.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), the Canadian Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) Score, and the Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) Rule have all previously demonstrated the potential to significantly standardize care and improve the management of patients in emergency departments (EDs). On the basis of user feedback, we believe that the addition of these rules to the Ottawa Rules App has the potential to increase the app's usability and user acceptability.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the perceived usefulness, acceptability, and uptake of the enhanced Ottawa Rules App (which now includes CCHR, TIA, and SAH Rules) among ED clinicians (medical students, residents, nurses, and physicians).
methodsThe enhanced Ottawa Rules App was publicly released for free on iOS and Android operating systems in November 2018. This study was conducted across 2 tertiary EDs in Ottawa, Canada. Posters, direct enrollment, snowball sampling, and emails were used for study recruitment. A 24-question Web-based survey was administered to participants via email, and this was used to determine user acceptability of the app and Technology Readiness Index (TRI) scores. In-app user analytics were collected to track user behavior, such as the number of app sessions, length of app sessions, frequency of rule use, and the date app was first opened.
resultsA total of 77 ED clinicians completed the study, including 34 nurses, 12 residents, 14 physicians, and 17 medical students completing ED rotations. The median TRI score for this group was 3.38, indicating a higher than average propensity to embrace and adopt new technologies to accomplish goals in their work or daily lives. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the app helped participants accurately carry out the clinical rules (56/77, 73%) and that they would recommend this app to their colleagues (64/77, 83%). Feedback from study participants suggested further expansion of the app-more clinical decision rules (CDRs) and different versions of the app tailored to the clinician role. Analysis and comparison of Google Analytics data and in-app data revealed similar usage behavior among study-enrolled users and all app users globally.
conclusionsThis study provides evidence that using the Ottawa Rules App (version 3.0.2) to improve and guide patient care would be feasible and widely accepted. The ability to verify self-reported user data (via a Web-based survey) against server analytics data is a notable strength of this study. Participants' continued app use and request for the addition of more CDRs warrant the further development of this app and call for additional studies to evaluate its feasibility and usability in different settings as well as assessment of clinical impact.
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.