ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2020
Can emergency department provider notes help to achieve more dynamic clinical decision support?
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Can emergency department provider notes help to achieve more dynamic clinical decision support?Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAssess whether clinical data were present in emergency department (ED) provider notes at time of order entry for cervical spine (c-spine) imaging that could be used to augment or pre-populate clinical decision support (CDS) attributes.
methodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study, performed in a quaternary hospital, included all encounters for adult ED patients seen April 1, 2013-September 30, 2014 for a chief complaint of trauma who received c-spine computed tomography (CT) or x-ray. We assessed proportion of ED encounters with at least 1 c-spine-specific CDS rule attribute in clinical notes available at the time of imaging order and agreement between attributes in clinical notes and data entered into CDS.
resultsA portion of the clinical note was submitted before imaging order in 42% (184/438) of encounters reviewed; 59.2% (109/184) of encounters with note portions submitted before imaging order had at least 1 positive CDS attribute identified supporting imaging study appropriateness; 34.8% (64/184) identified exclusion criteria where CDS appropriateness recommendations would not be applicable. 65.8% (121/184) of encounters had either a positive CDS attribute or an exclusion criterion. Concordance of c-spine CDS attributes when present in both notes and CDS was 68.4% (κ = 0.35 95% CI: 0.15-0.56; McNemar
conclusionsClinical notes are an underutilized source of clinical attributes needed for CDS, available in a substantial percentage of encounters at the time of imaging order. Automated pre-population of imaging order requisitions with relevant clinical information extracted from electronic health record provider notes may: (1) improve ordering efficiency by reducing redundant data entry, (2) help improve clinical relevance of CDS alerts, and (3) potentially reduce provider burnout from extraneous alerts.
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.