ArticleBMC emergency medicine2024
Implementation of major trauma app: usability and data completeness.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe current UK standard for major trauma patients is to record notes in a paper trauma booklet. Through an innovative collaboration between a major trauma centre and a digital transformation industry partner, a TraumaApp was developed. Electronic notes have been shown to have fewer errors, granular data collection and enable time stamped contemporaneous record keeping. Implementation of digital clinical records presents a challenge within the context of trauma multidisciplinary trauma resuscitation. Data can be easily accessible and shared for quality improvement, audit and research purposes. This study compared paper and electronic notes for completeness and for acceptability data following the implementation of the TraumaApp.
methodsTrauma team members who performed scribe function attended training for the newly launched TraumaApp. Two staff members acted as scribe, using either the paper trauma booklet or TraumaApp, and attended major trauma calls. A framework for comparison of paper and electronic notes was created and used for a retrospective review of major trauma patients' notes. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-tailed t-test. Staff using the TraumaApp completed a System Usability Score questionnaire.
resultsThere was a total of 37 data points for collection per case. The mean numbers collected were paper notes 24.1 of 37 (65.1%) and electronic notes, 25.7 of 37 (69.5%). There was no statistical significance between the completeness of paper and electronic notes. The mean System Usability Score was 68.4. DISCUSSION: Recording accurate patient information during a major trauma call can be challenging and the role of the scribe to accurately record events is critical for immediate and future care. There was no statistically significant difference in completeness of paper and electronic notes, however the mean System Usability Score was 68.4, which is greater than the internationally validated standard of acceptable usability.
conclusionIt is feasible to introduce digital data collection tools enabling accurate record keeping during trauma resuscitation and improve information sharing between clinicians.
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.