Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35368507›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2022

Electronic health record-based patient tracking by emergency medicine physicians.

Constanza Villalba, Ryan C Burke, Kiersten Gurley, Gurpreet Dhaliwal, Shamai Grossman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Constanza VillalbaElsevier Clinical Solutions Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0778-9502
Ryan C BurkeDepartment of Emergency Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5327-5735
Kiersten GurleyDepartment of Emergency Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1671-0571
Gurpreet DhaliwalDepartment of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-5913
Shamai GrossmanDepartment of Emergency Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4154-080X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Emergency medicine (EM) physicians commonly track the progress of former patients to learn about their clinical outcome. While some studies have described the behavior, little is known about the specific information sought during tracking. The objective of this study was to determine how often EM physicians track patients and the motivations, strategies, and barriers to tracking. Methods: In June 2019 we surveyed EM physicians practicing at six hospitals. We defined patient tracking as viewing the chart of a patient who was no longer under the physician's care or contacting the patient or the patient's subsequent providers to learn about the patient's progress. The survey asked respondents how often they track patients, by what mechanisms, and for what reasons. The survey also asked what information physicians sought when tracking and what barriers to tracking exist. Results: Of the 156 EM physicians invited to respond, 111 completed the survey (72% response rate). Of those, 109 (98%) reported tracking their patients, and residents reported tracking a higher percentage of patients than attendings. Reasons for tracking included an unusual or complex case (98%), uncertain diagnosis (89%), and concern about a potential error (48%). Most respondents (86%) said that knowledge gained from patient tracking changed their subsequent practice patterns, and almost all respondents (98%) strongly agreed or agreed that tracking helps physicians avoid future mistakes. The most commonly sought information types during tracking were the hospital discharge summary or emergency department note from the index visit, test results since the index visit, and new diagnoses added since the index visit. Physicians cited time limitations and difficulty accessing information as the leading barriers to tracking. Conclusions: Patient tracking is nearly ubiquitous among surveyed EM physicians, who find it valuable for learning and patient safety.

Indexed as

diagnostic erroremergency medicinefeedbackhealth care qualitymedical error

Identifiers

PMID35368507
PMCPMC8923647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.