Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34973608›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2022

Engaging clinicians early during the development of a graphical user display of an intelligent alerting system at the bedside.

Stephanie Helman, Martha Ann Terry, Tiffany Pellathy, Andrew Williams, Artur Dubrawski, Gilles Clermont, Michael R Pinsky, Salah Al-Zaiti, Marilyn Hravnak

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Intelligent Clinical Decision Support.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  19. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie HelmanThe Department of Acute and Tertiary Care Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: smh178@pitt.edu.
Martha Ann TerryThe Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: materry@pitt.edu.
Tiffany PellathyThe Veterans Administration Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: tiffany.pellathy@va.gov.
Andrew WilliamsThe Auton Lab, School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: awillia2@andrew.cmu.edu.
Artur DubrawskiThe Auton Lab, School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: awd@cs.cmu.edu.
Gilles ClermontThe Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: cler@pitt.edu.
Michael R PinskyThe Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: pinsky@pitt.edu.
Salah Al-ZaitiThe Department of Acute and Tertiary Care Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; The Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; The Division of Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: ssa33@pitt.edu.
Marilyn HravnakThe Department of Acute and Tertiary Care Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: mhra@pitt.edu.
University of Pittsburgh · USCarnegie Mellon University · USVA Pittsburgh Healthcare System · US

Funding

Predicting Patient Instability Noninvasively for Nursing Care-Two (PPINNC-2)R01NR013912 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI AL-ZAITI, SALAH S, CLERMONT, GILLES · 2012 to 2025
$7.0M
Technology Research in Chronic & Critical IllnessT32NR008857 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Young Ji Lee · 2005 to 2026
$4.0M
Use of Predictive Analytics to Quantify Neonatal Hypothermia Burden After Cardiac SurgeryF31NR019725 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI HELMAN, STEPHANIE M · 2021 to 2023
$134k
NINR NIH HHS F31 NR019725NINR NIH HHS R01 NR013912NINR NIH HHS T32 NR008857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support bedside clinical decisions, but information must be presented in usable ways within workflow. Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) are front-facing presentations for communicating AI outputs, but clinicians are not routinely invited to participate in their design, hindering AI solution potential. PURPOSE: To inform early user-engaged design of a GUI prototype aimed at predicting future Cardiorespiratory Insufficiency (CRI) by exploring clinician methods for identifying at-risk patients, previous experience with implementing new technologies into clinical workflow, and user perspectives on GUI screen changes.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative focus group study to elicit iterative design feedback from clinical end-users on an early GUI prototype display. Five online focus group sessions were held, each moderated by an expert focus group methodologist. Iterative design changes were made sequentially, and the updated GUI display was presented to the next group of participants.

results23 clinicians were recruited (14 nurses, 4 nurse practitioners, 5 physicians; median participant age ∼35 years; 60% female; median clinical experience 8 years). Five themes emerged from thematic content analysis: trend evolution, context (risk evolution relative to vital signs and interventions), evaluation/interpretation/explanation (sub theme: continuity of evaluation), clinician intuition, and clinical operations. Based on these themes, GUI display changes were made. For example, color and scale adjustments, integration of clinical information, and threshold personalization.

conclusionsEarly user-engaged design was useful in adjusting GUI presentation of AI output. Next steps involve clinical testing and further design modification of the AI output to optimally facilitate clinician surveillance and decisions. Clinicians should be involved early and often in clinical decision support design to optimize efficacy of AI tools.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPhysiciansAdultArtificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleWorkflowFocus groupsGraphical user interfaceModeling

Identifiers

PMID34973608
PMCPMC9040820
OpenAlexW3212476026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.