Literature DB >> 19470722

The effect of erroneous computer interpretation of ECGs on resident decision making.

William N Southern1, Julia Hope Arnsten.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of computer interpretations of electrocardiograms(ECGs) as an aid to physician interpretations is widespread. Computer misinterpretations are common and negatively affect physician interpretations.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of computer ECG misinterpretations on clinical decision making.
DESIGN: Quasi-randomized trial.
SETTING: Resident teaching conferences. PARTICIPANTS: Included 105 internal and emergency medicine residents. INTERVENTION: After a brief case presentation, residents were asked to interpret an ECG and choose appropriate management. Residents chose from a concealed stack of handouts; some contained an erroneous computer interpretation of the ECG (citing acute ischemia), and some contained no computer interpretation. MEASUREMENTS: ECG interpretations and management decisions by residents whose ECG did or did not include an erroneous computer interpretation were compared using chi-square tests.
RESULTS: The presence or absence of erroneous computer interpretations of ischemia did not significantly affect residents' ECG interpretations (P = 0.62). However, the residents whose ECGs included erroneous computer interpretations were more likely to recommend revascularization than the residents without (30% v. 10%, P = 0.01). Of those residents who read the ECG as diagnostic of ischemia, those with the erroneous computer interpretation were more likely to recommend revascularization than those without (54% v. 25%, P = 0.048). LIMITATIONS: A single ECG was used.
CONCLUSIONS: Erroneous computer interpretations of ECGs affected residents' clinical decision making in the absence of an effect on the actual interpretation of the ECG. Measuring the impact of computer misinterpretations by examining only physician interpretations will underestimate the effect of computer misinterpretations on clinical decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19470722      PMCID: PMC2806088          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09333125

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  19 in total

1.  Training and competency evaluation for interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: recommendations from the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Stephen M Salerno; Patrick C Alguire; Herbert S Waxman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Competency in interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiograms: a summary and appraisal of published evidence.

Authors:  Stephen M Salerno; Patrick C Alguire; Herbert S Waxman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Computer decision support as a source of interpretation error: the case of electrocardiograms.

Authors:  Theodore L Tsai; Douglas B Fridsma; Guido Gatti
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003-06-04       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Evaluation of ECG interpretation results obtained by computer and cardiologists.

Authors:  J L Willems; C Abreu-Lima; P Arnaud; C R Brohet; B Denis; J Gehring; I Graham; G van Herpen; H Machado; J Michaelis
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.176

5.  Computerized electrocardiographic interpretation: an analysis of clinical utility in 5110 electrocardiograms.

Authors:  A Thomson; S Mitchell; P J Harris
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1989-10-16       Impact factor: 7.738

6.  Does a computer-based ECG-recorder interpret electrocardiograms more efficiently than physicians?

Authors:  A Jakobsson; P Ohlin; O Pahlm
Journal:  Clin Physiol       Date:  1985-10

7.  Strict reliance on a computer algorithm or measurable ST segment criteria may lead to errors in thrombolytic therapy eligibility.

Authors:  D Massel; J A Dawdy; L J Melendez
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  The emergency department versus the computer: which is the better electrocardiographer?

Authors:  C S Snyder; A L Fenrich; R A Friedman; C Macias; K O'Reilly; N J Kertesz
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2002-12-04       Impact factor: 1.655

9.  Comparative accuracy of automated computer analysis versus physicans in training in the interpretation of electrocardiograms.

Authors:  K Sekiguchi; T Kanda; M Osada; Y Tsunoda; N Kodajima; Y Fukumura; T Suzuki; I Kobayashi
Journal:  J Med       Date:  1999

10.  The diagnostic performance of computer programs for the interpretation of electrocardiograms.

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

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators.

Authors:  Kate Goddard; Abdul Roudsari; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Prognostic implications of Q waves and T-wave inversion associated with early repolarization.

Authors:  Abhimanyu Uberoi; Karim Sallam; Marco Perez; Nikhil A Jain; Euan Ashley; Victor Froelicher
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 7.616

3.  Automatic Triage of 12-Lead ECGs Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.

Authors:  Rutger R van de Leur; Lennart J Blom; Efstratios Gavves; Irene E Hof; Jeroen F van der Heijden; Nick C Clappers; Pieter A Doevendans; Rutger J Hassink; René van Es
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 4.  Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

Authors:  David Lyell; Enrico Coiera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.497

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.