ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2023
Limitations in the use of automated mental status detection for clinical decision support.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision support (CDS) tools improve adherence to evidence-based practices but are dependent upon data quality in the electronic health record (EHR). Mental status is an integral component of many risk stratification scores, but it is not known whether EHR-measures of altered mental status are reliable. The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a measure of altered mentation that is widely adopted and entered in the EHR in structured format. We sought to determine the accuracy GCS < 15 as an EHR-measure of altered mentation compared to ED provider documentation.
methodsIn patients presenting to an academic Emergency Department (ED) with pneumonia we abstracted GCS values entered by nurses during routine care and in a randomly selected subset manually reviewed provider documentation for evidence of altered mental status. We defined eConfusion as present if GCS < 15 at any point during the ED encounter. We then calculated the CURB-65 score and corresponding suggested disposition using each method. Performance of eConfusion and corresponding CURB-65 compared to manual versions was measured using agreement (Cohen's K), sensitivity, and specificity.
resultsAmong 300 randomly selected encounters, 47 (16 %) had eConfusion present and 46 (15 %) had evidence of altered mental status in provider documentation with Cohen's K 0.73. eConfusion had 78 % sensitivity and 96 % specificity for provider documented altered mental status. When input into CURB-65 to recommend inpatient disposition, eConfusion had 95 % sensitivity, and recommended discordant disposition for 3 %.
conclusionsThere was modest agreement between eConfusion and provider documentation of altered mental status. eConfusion had good specificity but low sensitivity which resulted in under-estimation of the CURB-65 score and occasional inappropriate disposition recommendations compared to provider documentation. These data do not support the use of GCS as a measure for altered mentation for use in CDS tools in the ED.
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.