Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34255728›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2021

Predicting and Responding to Clinical Deterioration in Hospitalized Patients by Using Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Stepped Wedge Study.

Laura M Holdsworth, Samantha M R Kling, Margaret Smith, Nadia Safaeinili, Lisa Shieh, Stacie Vilendrer, Donn W Garvert, Marcy Winget, Steven M Asch, Ron C Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Laura M HoldsworthDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0611-2700
Samantha M R KlingDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-763X
Margaret SmithDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-8627
Nadia SafaeiniliDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4792-3091
Lisa ShiehDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2729-315X
Stacie VilendrerDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2317-5973
Donn W GarvertDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0827-9611
Marcy WingetDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5893-280X
Steven M AschDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5838-5335
Ron C LiDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4310-7137

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe early identification of clinical deterioration in patients in hospital units can decrease mortality rates and improve other patient outcomes; yet, this remains a challenge in busy hospital settings. Artificial intelligence (AI), in the form of predictive models, is increasingly being explored for its potential to assist clinicians in predicting clinical deterioration.

objectiveUsing the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model, this study aims to assess whether an AI-enabled work system improves clinical outcomes, describe how the clinical deterioration index (CDI) predictive model and associated work processes are implemented, and define the emergent properties of the AI-enabled work system that mediate the observed clinical outcomes.

methodsThis study will use a mixed methods approach that is informed by the SEIPS 2.0 model to assess both processes and outcomes and focus on how physician-nurse clinical teams are affected by the presence of AI. The intervention will be implemented in hospital medicine units based on a modified stepped wedge design featuring three stages over 11 months-stage 0 represents a baseline period 10 months before the implementation of the intervention; stage 1 introduces the CDI predictions to physicians only and triggers a physician-driven workflow; and stage 2 introduces the CDI predictions to the multidisciplinary team, which includes physicians and nurses, and triggers a nurse-driven workflow. Quantitative data will be collected from the electronic health record for the clinical processes and outcomes. Interviews will be conducted with members of the multidisciplinary team to understand how the intervention changes the existing work system and processes. The SEIPS 2.0 model will provide an analytic framework for a mixed methods analysis.

resultsA pilot period for the study began in December 2020, and the results are expected in mid-2022.

conclusionsThis protocol paper proposes an approach to evaluation that recognizes the importance of assessing both processes and outcomes to understand how a multifaceted AI-enabled intervention affects the complex team-based work of identifying and managing clinical deterioration. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/27532.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical deteriorationmixed methodspredictive models, SEIPS 2.0rapid response teamworkflow

Identifiers

PMID34255728
PMCPMC8295833

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.