ArticleApplied clinical informatics2022
Decision Support to Improve Critical Care Services Documentation in an Academic Emergency Department.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Variation in Emergency Department Experience With Pediatric Critical Illness.Annals of emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCritical care services (CCS) documentation affects billing, operations, and research. No studies exist on documentation decision support (DDS) for CCS in the emergency department (ED). We describe the design, implementation, and evaluation of a DDS tool built to improve CCS documentation at an academic ED.
methodsThis quality improvement study reports the prospective design, implementation, and evaluation of a novel DDS tool for CCS documentation at an academic ED. CCS-associated ED diagnoses triggered a message to appear within the physician note attestation workflow for any patient seen in the adult ED. The alert raised awareness of CCS-associated diagnoses without recommending specific documentation practices. The message disappeared from the note automatically once signed. We measured current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 99291 or 99292 (representing CCS rendered) for 8 months before and after deployment to identify CCS documentation rates. We performed state-space Bayesian time-series analysis to evaluate the causal effect of our intervention on CCS documentation capture. We used monthly ED volume and monthly admission rates as covariate time-series for model generation.
resultsThe study included 92,350 ED patients with an observed mean proportion CCS of 3.9% before the intervention and 5.8% afterward. The counterfactual model predicted an average response of 3.9% [95% CI 3.5-4.3%]. The estimated absolute causal effect of the intervention was 2.0% [95% CI 1.5-2.4%] (
conclusionA DDS tool measurably increased ED CCS documentation. Attention to user workflows and collaboration with compliance and billing teams avoided alert fatigue and ensures compliance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.