Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35129452›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

Improving Emergency Department Patient-Physician Conversation Through an Artificial Intelligence Symptom-Taking Tool: Mixed Methods Pilot Observational Study.

Justus Scheder-Bieschin, Bibiana Blümke, Erwin de Buijzer, Fabienne Cotte, Fabian Echterdiek, Júlia Nacsa, Marta Ondresik, Matthias Ott, Gregor Paul, Tobias Schilling and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors.

Justus Scheder-BieschinDepartment of Interdisciplinary Acute, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine (DIANI), Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5145-8992
Bibiana BlümkeAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5951-7894
Erwin de BuijzerAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1381-9424
Fabienne CotteAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2898-422X
Fabian EchterdiekDepartment of Nephrology, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7239-4959
Júlia NacsaAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7796-1094
Marta OndresikAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2288-4911
Matthias OttDepartment of Interdisciplinary Acute, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine (DIANI), Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1271-7415
Gregor PaulDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1075-4362
Tobias SchillingDepartment of Interdisciplinary Acute, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine (DIANI), Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1715-6143
Anne SchmittAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0925-8270
Paul WicksAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2293-9284
Stephen GilbertAda Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1997-1689

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstablishing rapport and empathy between patients and their health care provider is important but challenging in the context of a busy and crowded emergency department (ED).

objectiveWe explore the hypotheses that rapport building, documentation, and time efficiency might be improved in the ED by providing patients a digital tool that uses Bayesian reasoning-based techniques to gather relevant symptoms and history for handover to clinicians.

methodsA 2-phase pilot evaluation was carried out in the ED of a German tertiary referral and major trauma hospital that treats an average of 120 patients daily. Phase 1 observations guided iterative improvement of the digital tool, which was then further evaluated in phase 2. All patients who were willing and able to provide consent were invited to participate, excluding those with severe injury or illness requiring immediate treatment, with traumatic injury, incapable of completing a health assessment, and aged <18 years. Over an 18-day period with 1699 patients presenting to the ED, 815 (47.96%) were eligible based on triage level. With available recruitment staff, 135 were approached, of whom 81 (60%) were included in the study. In a mixed methods evaluation, patients entered information into the tool, accessed by clinicians through a dashboard. All users completed evaluation Likert-scale questionnaires rating the tool's performance. The feasibility of a larger trial was evaluated through rates of recruitment and questionnaire completion.

resultsRespondents strongly endorsed the tool for facilitating conversation (61/81, 75% of patients, 57/78, 73% of physician ratings, and 10/10, 100% of nurse ratings). Most nurses judged the tool as potentially time saving, whereas most physicians only agreed for a subset of medical specialties (eg, surgery). Patients reported high usability and understood the tool's questions. The tool was recommended by most patients (63/81, 78%), in 53% (41/77) of physician ratings, and in 76% (61/80) of nurse ratings. Questionnaire completion rates were 100% (81/81) by patients and 96% (78/81 enrolled patients) by physicians.

conclusionsThis pilot confirmed that a larger study in the setting would be feasible. The tool has clear potential to improve patient-health care provider interaction and could also contribute to ED efficiency savings. Future research and development will extend the range of patients for whom the history-taking tool has clinical utility.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00024115; https://drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00024115.

Indexed as

anamnesisdiagnosisemergency departmenthealth care systempatient history takingsymptom assessment application

Identifiers

PMID35129452
PMCPMC8861871

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.