Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33684144›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Effects of patients' hospital discharge preferences on uptake of clinical decision support.

James C Cox, Ira L Leeds, Vjollca Sadiraj, Kurt E Schnier, John F Sweeney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

James C CoxDepartment of Economics and Experimental Economics Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8614-9986
Ira L LeedsDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6572-8658
Vjollca SadirajDepartment of Economics and Experimental Economics Center, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Kurt E SchnierDepartment of Economics and Business Management, University of California - Merced, Merced, California, United States of America.
John F SweeneyDepartment of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Georgia State University · USEmory University · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of California, Merced · US

Funding

Uptake of Comparative Effectiveness Research: Implications for Discharge DecisionRC4AG039071 · NIA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI COX, JAMES CONNOR, SWEENEY, JOHN F · 2010 to 2010
$1.2M
NIA NIH HHS RC4 AG039071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services identified unplanned hospital readmissions as a critical healthcare quality and cost problem. Improvements in hospital discharge decision-making and post-discharge care are needed to address the problem. Utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) can improve discharge decision-making but little is known about the empirical significance of two opposing problems that can occur: (1) negligible uptake of CDS by providers or (2) over-reliance on CDS and underuse of other information. This paper reports an experiment where, in addition to electronic medical records (EMR), clinical decision-makers are provided subjective reports by standardized patients, or CDS information, or both. Subjective information, reports of being eager or reluctant for discharge, was obtained during examinations of standardized patients, who are regularly employed in medical education, and in our experiment had been given scripts for the experimental treatments. The CDS tool presents discharge recommendations obtained from econometric analysis of data from de-identified EMR of hospital patients. 38 clinical decision-makers in the experiment, who were third and fourth year medical students, discharged eight simulated patient encounters with an average length of stay 8.1 in the CDS supported group and 8.8 days in the control group. When the recommendation was "Discharge," CDS uptake of "Discharge" recommendation was 20% higher for eager than reluctant patients. Compared to discharge decisions in the absence of patient reports: (i) odds of discharging reluctant standardized patients were 67% lower in the CDS-assisted group and 40% lower in the control (no-CDS) group; whereas (ii) odds of discharging eager standardized patients were 75% higher in the control group and similar in CDS-assisted group. These findings indicate that participants were neither ignoring nor over-relying on CDS.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision RulesDecision MakingDecision Support Systems, ClinicalEducation, MedicalElectronic Health RecordsHumansPatient DischargePatient ReadmissionPatientsStudents, Medical

Identifiers

PMID33684144
PMCPMC7939268
OpenAlexW3133678434

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.