ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
"Be Really Careful about That": Clinicians' Perceptions of an Intelligence Augmentation Tool for In-Hospital Deterioration Detection.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore clinicians' perceptions and preferences of prototype intelligence augmentation (IA)-based visualization displays of in-hospital deterioration risk scores to inform future user interface design and implementation in clinical care.
methodsPrototype visualization displays incorporating an IA-based early warning score (EWS) for in-hospital deterioration were developed using cognitive theory and user-centered design principles. The displays featured variations of EWS and clinical data arranged in multipatient and single-patient views. Physician and nurse participants with at least 5 years of clinical experience were recruited to participate in semistructured qualitative interviews focused on understanding their experiences with IA and thoughts and preferences about the prototype displays. A thematic analysis was performed on these data.
resultsSix themes were identified: (1) clinicians perceive IA as valuable with some caveats related to function and context; (2) individual differences among users influence preferences for customizability; (3) EWS are particularly useful for patient triage; (4) need for patient-centered contextual information to complement EWS; (5) perspectives related to understanding the EWS composition; and (6) design preferences that focus on clarity for interpretation of information.
conclusionThis study demonstrates clinicians' interest in and reservations about IA tools for clinical deterioration. The findings underscore the importance of understanding clinicians' cognitive needs and framing IA-generated tools as complementary to support them. A clinician focuses on high-level pattern matching information, and clinician's comments related to the power of consistency with typical views (e.g., this is "how I usually see things"), and questions regarding support of score interpretation (e.g., age of the data, questions about what the model "knows") suggest some of the challenges of IA implementation. The findings also identify design implications including the need for contextualizing the EWS for the patient's specific situation, incorporating trend information, and explaining the display purpose for clinical use.
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.