BACKGROUND: Hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care and tight control can save lives. Current ad-hoc clinical protocols require significant clinical effort and can often produce highly variable results. Thus, tight control remains elusive as there is not enough understanding of the relationship between control performance and protocol design, particularly with regard to how a given protocol is implemented. METHODS: This article examines the role of human factors and how individuals relate to technological protocols in clinical settings. The study consists of an overall brief review that is used to create a first graphical representation of the impact of human factors in clinical medical protocol implementations. This initial framework is examined in the context of two similar, but different, case studies-the specialized relative insulin and nutrition tables glycemic control protocol and the TREAT system for antibiotic selection. RESULTS: A graphical framework relating the human factors impact on medical protocol implementation is created. This framework describes the primary impacts on performance as resulting from clinical burden and protocol transparency. Their primary effect is on compliance with the protocol, which directly affects performance and outcome, particularly in long-term studies versus short pilot studies. SUMMARY: Compliance is a key element in obtaining the best clinical outcome that a given protocol can provide. The issues that most affect compliance are quite often unrelated to the patient or treatment, but are a function of the protocol design and its ability to integrate (by its design) into a given clinical setting. A framework for examining these issues in design and in post-hoc assessment is therefore proposed and examined in two brief case studies.
BACKGROUND:Hyperglycemia is prevalent in critical care and tight control can save lives. Current ad-hoc clinical protocols require significant clinical effort and can often produce highly variable results. Thus, tight control remains elusive as there is not enough understanding of the relationship between control performance and protocol design, particularly with regard to how a given protocol is implemented. METHODS: This article examines the role of human factors and how individuals relate to technological protocols in clinical settings. The study consists of an overall brief review that is used to create a first graphical representation of the impact of human factors in clinical medical protocol implementations. This initial framework is examined in the context of two similar, but different, case studies-the specialized relative insulin and nutrition tables glycemic control protocol and the TREAT system for antibiotic selection. RESULTS: A graphical framework relating the human factors impact on medical protocol implementation is created. This framework describes the primary impacts on performance as resulting from clinical burden and protocol transparency. Their primary effect is on compliance with the protocol, which directly affects performance and outcome, particularly in long-term studies versus short pilot studies. SUMMARY: Compliance is a key element in obtaining the best clinical outcome that a given protocol can provide. The issues that most affect compliance are quite often unrelated to the patient or treatment, but are a function of the protocol design and its ability to integrate (by its design) into a given clinical setting. A framework for examining these issues in design and in post-hoc assessment is therefore proposed and examined in two brief case studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical protocol; clinical results; compliance; control; glucose variability; human factors; hyperglycemia; intensive insulin therapy; metabolism; model based; mortality; performance
Authors: G van den Berghe; P Wouters; F Weekers; C Verwaest; F Bruyninckx; M Schetz; D Vlasselaers; P Ferdinande; P Lauwers; R Bouillon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Greet Van den Berghe; Alexander Wilmer; Ilse Milants; Pieter J Wouters; Bernard Bouckaert; Frans Bruyninckx; Roger Bouillon; Miet Schetz Journal: Diabetes Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: J Geoffrey Chase; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Lotz; Aaron LeCompte; Jason Wong; Jessica Lin; Timothy Lonergan; Michael Willacy; Christopher E Hann Journal: Curr Drug Deliv Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Rozita Razavi; Yin Chan; F Nikoo Afifiyan; Xue Jun Liu; Xiang Wan; Jason Yantha; Hubert Tsui; Lan Tang; Sue Tsai; Pere Santamaria; John P Driver; David Serreze; Michael W Salter; H-Michael Dosch Journal: Cell Date: 2006-12-15 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Zhihua Tang; Liza Weavind; Janine Mazabob; Eric J Thomas; Ming Ying L Chu-Weininger; Todd R Johnson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Alicia Evans; Aaron Le Compte; Chia-Siong Tan; Logan Ward; James Steel; Christopher G Pretty; Sophie Penning; Fatanah Suhaimi; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive; J Geoffrey Chase Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2012-01-01
Authors: Kristen Miller; Danielle Mosby; Muge Capan; Rebecca Kowalski; Raj Ratwani; Yaman Noaiseh; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kristen Miller; Muge Capan; Danielle Weldon; Yaman Noaiseh; Rebecca Kowalski; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.046