Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37151891›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2023

Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study.

Svetlana Herasevich, Yuliya Pinevich, Kirill Lipatov, Amelia K Barwise, Heidi L Lindroth, Allison M LeMahieu, Yue Dong, Vitaly Herasevich, Brian W Pickering

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Svetlana HerasevichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Yuliya PinevichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Kirill LipatovDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health Systems, Eau Claire, WI.
Amelia K BarwiseDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Heidi L LindrothDepartment of Nursing, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Allison M LeMahieuDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Yue DongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Vitaly HerasevichDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Brian W PickeringDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · USMayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS026609NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR).

designSingle center randomized crossover study.

settingQuaternary care academic hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers.

interventionsAMP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsWe compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments-the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7-10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (-6.11; 95% CI, -7.91 to -4.30 min and -5.38; 95% CI, -7.56 to -3.20 min, respectively;

conclusionsWhen compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians' performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportclinical informaticscognitive loadelectronic medical recordintensive care unit

Identifiers

PMID37151891
PMCPMC10158897
OpenAlexW4368618074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.