ArticleJAMIA open2024
End user experience of a widely used artificial intelligence based sepsis system.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-AI Collaboration in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Explanation and elaboration of MedinAI: guidelines for reporting artificial intelligence studies in medicines, pharmacotherapy, and pharmaceutical services.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Constructing an early warning model for elderly sepsis patients based on machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Checklist Approach to Developing and Implementing AI in Clinical Settings: Instrument Development Study.JMIRx med · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Research on the Epic Sepsis System (ESS) has predominantly focused on technical accuracy, neglecting the user experience of healthcare professionals. Understanding these experiences is crucial for the design of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in clinical settings. This study aims to explore the socio-technical dynamics affecting ESS adoption and use, based on user perceptions and experiences. Materials and Methods: Resident doctors and nurses with recent ESS interaction were interviewed using purposive sampling until data saturation. A content analysis was conducted using Dedoose software, with codes generated from Sittig and Singh's and Salwei and Carayon's frameworks, supplemented by inductive coding for emerging themes. Results: Interviews with 10 healthcare providers revealed mixed but generally positive or neutral perceptions of the ESS. Key discussion points included its workflow integration and usability. Findings were organized into 2 main domains: workflow fit, and usability and utility, highlighting the system's seamless electronic health record integration and identifying design gaps. Discussion: This study offers insights into clinicians' experiences with the ESS, emphasizing the socio-technical factors that influence its adoption and effective use. The positive reception was tempered by identified design issues, with clinician perceptions varying by their professional experience and frequency of ESS interaction. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for ongoing ESS refinement, emphasizing a balance between technological advancement and clinical practicality. This research contributes to the understanding of AI system adoption in healthcare, suggesting improvements for future clinical AI tools.
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.