S Goodacre1, A Webster, F Morris. 1. Department of Accident & Emergency Medicine, Northern General Hospital, Herries Road, Sheffield S5 7AU, UK. S.Goodacre@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether access to a computer generated electrocardiogram (ECG) report can reduce errors of interpretation by senior house officers (SHOs) in an accident and emergency department. METHODS: Ten SHOs were asked to interpret 50 ECGs each: 25 with computer generated reports, 25 without. Their answers, and the computer generated reports, were compared with a "gold standard" produced by two experienced clinicians. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of major errors of interpretation. RESULTS: The computer reading system made two major errors (4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1% to 13.5%) compared with the gold standard. Access to the computer report did not significantly reduce major errors among SHOs (46 (18.4%) with report v 56 (22.4%) without, odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.36% to 1.14%, p=0.13) or improve the proportion completely correct (104 (41.6%) with report v 91 (36.4%) without, odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.33, p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: SHOs have a high error rate when interpreting ECGs, which is not significantly reduced by access to a computer generated report. Junior doctors should continue to seek expert senior help when they have to interpret a difficult ECG.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether access to a computer generated electrocardiogram (ECG) report can reduce errors of interpretation by senior house officers (SHOs) in an accident and emergency department. METHODS: Ten SHOs were asked to interpret 50 ECGs each: 25 with computer generated reports, 25 without. Their answers, and the computer generated reports, were compared with a "gold standard" produced by two experienced clinicians. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of major errors of interpretation. RESULTS: The computer reading system made two major errors (4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1% to 13.5%) compared with the gold standard. Access to the computer report did not significantly reduce major errors among SHOs (46 (18.4%) with report v 56 (22.4%) without, odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.36% to 1.14%, p=0.13) or improve the proportion completely correct (104 (41.6%) with report v 91 (36.4%) without, odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.33, p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: SHOs have a high error rate when interpreting ECGs, which is not significantly reduced by access to a computer generated report. Junior doctors should continue to seek expert senior help when they have to interpret a difficult ECG.
Authors: T H Lee; G W Rouan; M C Weisberg; D A Brand; D Acampora; C Stasiulewicz; J Walshon; G Terranova; L Gottlieb; B Goldstein-Wayne Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1987-08-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: J L Willems; C Abreu-Lima; P Arnaud; J H van Bemmel; C Brohet; R Degani; B Denis; J Gehring; I Graham; G van Herpen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Alventosa-Zaidin; G Pera; C Roca Saumell; N Mengual Miralles; M V Zamora Sanchez; T Gros Garcia; L Guix Font; M Benitez Camps; J Francisco-Pascual; J Brugada Terradellas Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: William E Soares; Lori L Price; Brendan Prast; Elizabeth Tarbox; Timothy J Mader; Rebecca Blanchard Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-11-30