Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34477566›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2021

Measuring Collaboration Through Concurrent Electronic Health Record Usage: Network Analysis Study.

Patrick Li, Bob Chen, Evan Rhodes, Jason Slagle, Mhd Wael Alrifai, Daniel France, You Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Assessing Intrahospital Care Transition Structures Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Network Analysis Study.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2023
    Article
  5. Using electronic health record audit log data for research: insights from early efforts.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Patrick LiDepartment of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2842-5647
Bob ChenEpithelial Biology Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1508-1758
Evan RhodesDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7105-3922
Jason SlagleDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2775-3622
Mhd Wael AlrifaiDepartment of Pediatric, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0761-4905
Daniel FranceDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5648-8223
You ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8232-8840

Funding

Discovering Care Coordination Practice Patterns in the EMR: Interpretation and Impact on Patient OutcomesR01LM012854 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI CHEN, YOU · 2019 to 2022
$1.5M
BIDS: Vanderbilt Training Program in BIg Biomedical Data ScienceT32LM012412 · NLM · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BLUME, JEFFREY D., GADD, CYNTHIA S · 2016 to 2020
$1.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012854NLM NIH HHS T32 LM012412
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollaboration is vital within health care institutions, and it allows for the effective use of collective health care worker (HCW) expertise. Human-computer interactions involving electronic health records (EHRs) have become pervasive and act as an avenue for quantifying these collaborations using statistical and network analysis methods.

objectiveWe aimed to measure HCW collaboration and its characteristics by analyzing concurrent EHR usage.

methodsBy extracting concurrent EHR usage events from audit log data, we defined concurrent sessions. For each HCW, we established a metric called concurrent intensity, which was the proportion of EHR activities in concurrent sessions over all EHR activities. Statistical models were used to test the differences in the concurrent intensity between HCWs. For each patient visit, starting from admission to discharge, we measured concurrent EHR usage across all HCWs, which we called temporal patterns. Again, we applied statistical models to test the differences in temporal patterns of the admission, discharge, and intermediate days of hospital stay between weekdays and weekends. Network analysis was leveraged to measure collaborative relationships among HCWs. We surveyed experts to determine if they could distinguish collaborative relationships between high and low likelihood categories derived from concurrent EHR usage. Clustering was used to aggregate concurrent activities to describe concurrent sessions. We gathered 4 months of EHR audit log data from a large academic medical center's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to validate the effectiveness of our framework.

resultsThere was a significant difference (P<.001) in the concurrent intensity (proportion of concurrent activities: ranging from mean 0.07, 95% CI 0.06-0.08, to mean 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54; proportion of time spent on concurrent activities: ranging from mean 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.44, to mean 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.00) between the top 13 HCW specialties who had the largest amount of time spent in EHRs. Temporal patterns between weekday and weekend periods were significantly different on admission (number of concurrent intervals per hour: 11.60 vs 0.54; P<.001) and discharge days (4.72 vs 1.54; P<.001), but not during intermediate days of hospital stay. Neonatal nurses, fellows, frontline providers, neonatologists, consultants, respiratory therapists, and ancillary and support staff had collaborative relationships. NICU professionals could distinguish high likelihood collaborative relationships from low ones at significant rates (3.54, 95% CI 3.31-4.37 vs 2.64, 95% CI 2.46-3.29; P<.001). We identified 50 clusters of concurrent activities. Over 87% of concurrent sessions could be described by a single cluster, with the remaining 13% of sessions comprising multiple clusters.

conclusionsLeveraging concurrent EHR usage workflow through audit logs to analyze HCW collaboration may improve our understanding of collaborative patient care. HCW collaboration using EHRs could potentially influence the quality of patient care, discharge timeliness, and clinician workload, stress, or burnout.

Indexed as

audit logsclusteringcollaborationconcurrent interactionelectronic health recordshealth care workershuman-computer interactioninformatics frameworkneonatal intensive care unitnetwork analysissecondary data analysissurvey instrumentvisualization

Identifiers

PMID34477566
PMCPMC8449299

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.