Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33566093›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Impact of a problem-oriented view on clinical data retrieval.

Michael G Semanik, Peter C Kleinschmidt, Adam Wright, Duwayne L Willett, Shannon M Dean, Sameh N Saleh, Zoe Co, Emmanuel Sampene, Joel R Buchanan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

9 authors.

Michael G SemanikDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Peter C KleinschmidtDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Adam WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Duwayne L WillettDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Shannon M DeanDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Sameh N SalehDepartment of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Zoe CoDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Emmanuel SampeneDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Joel R BuchananDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe electronic health record (EHR) data deluge makes data retrieval more difficult, escalating cognitive load and exacerbating clinician burnout. New auto-summarization techniques are needed. The study goal was to determine if problem-oriented view (POV) auto-summaries improve data retrieval workflows. We hypothesized that POV users would perform tasks faster, make fewer errors, be more satisfied with EHR use, and experience less cognitive load as compared with users of the standard view (SV).

methodsSimple data retrieval tasks were performed in an EHR simulation environment. A randomized block design was used. In the control group (SV), subjects retrieved lab results and medications by navigating to corresponding sections of the electronic record. In the intervention group (POV), subjects clicked on the name of the problem and immediately saw lab results and medications relevant to that problem.

resultsWith POV, mean completion time was faster (173 seconds for POV vs 205 seconds for SV; P < .0001), the error rate was lower (3.4% for POV vs 7.7% for SV; P = .0010), user satisfaction was greater (System Usability Scale score 58.5 for POV vs 41.3 for SV; P < .0001), and cognitive task load was less (NASA Task Load Index score 0.72 for POV vs 0.99 for SV; P < .0001). DISCUSSION: The study demonstrates that using a problem-based auto-summary has a positive impact on 4 aspects of EHR data retrieval, including cognitive load.

conclusionEHRs have brought on a data deluge, with increased cognitive load and physician burnout. To mitigate these increases, further development and implementation of auto-summarization functionality and the requisite knowledge base are needed.

Indexed as

Data DisplayElectronic Health RecordsMedical Records, Problem-OrientedHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalUser-Computer InterfaceWorkflowclinical decision support systemsdata displayelectronic health recordsmedical recordsproblem-orienteduser-computer interface

Identifiers

PMID33566093
PMCPMC8068438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.