Matthew E Nolan1, Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba2, Pablo Moreno-Franco3, Brian Pickering4, Vitaly Herasevich4. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States. 2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, United States. 3. Department of Transplantation, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, United States. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The electronic chart review habits of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians admitting new patients are largely unknown but necessary to inform the design of existing and future critical care information systems. METHODS: We conducted a survey study to assess the electronic chart review practices, information needs, workflow, and data display preferences among medical ICU clinicians admitting new patients. We surveyed rotating residents, critical care fellows, advanced practice providers, and attending physicians at three Mayo Clinic sites (Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona) via email with a single follow-up reminder message. RESULTS: Of 234 clinicians invited, 156 completed the full survey (67% response rate). Ninety-two percent of medical ICU clinicians performed electronic chart review for the majority of new patients. Clinicians estimated spending a median (interquartile range (IQR)) of 15 (10-20) minutes for a typical case, and 25 (15-40) minutes for complex cases, with no difference across training levels. Chart review spans 3 or more years for two-thirds of clinicians, with the most relevant categories being imaging, laboratory studies, diagnostic studies, microbiology reports, and clinical notes, although most time is spent reviewing notes. Most clinicians (77%) worry about overlooking important information due to the volume of data (74%) and inadequate display/organization (63%). Potential solutions are chronologic ordering of disparate data types, color coding, and explicit data filtering techniques. The ability to dynamically customize information display for different users and varying clinical scenarios is paramount. CONCLUSION: Electronic chart review of historical data is an important, prevalent, and potentially time-consuming activity among medical ICU clinicians who would benefit from improved information display systems. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
OBJECTIVE: The electronic chart review habits of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians admitting new patients are largely unknown but necessary to inform the design of existing and future critical care information systems. METHODS: We conducted a survey study to assess the electronic chart review practices, information needs, workflow, and data display preferences among medical ICU clinicians admitting new patients. We surveyed rotating residents, critical care fellows, advanced practice providers, and attending physicians at three Mayo Clinic sites (Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona) via email with a single follow-up reminder message. RESULTS: Of 234 clinicians invited, 156 completed the full survey (67% response rate). Ninety-two percent of medical ICU clinicians performed electronic chart review for the majority of new patients. Clinicians estimated spending a median (interquartile range (IQR)) of 15 (10-20) minutes for a typical case, and 25 (15-40) minutes for complex cases, with no difference across training levels. Chart review spans 3 or more years for two-thirds of clinicians, with the most relevant categories being imaging, laboratory studies, diagnostic studies, microbiology reports, and clinical notes, although most time is spent reviewing notes. Most clinicians (77%) worry about overlooking important information due to the volume of data (74%) and inadequate display/organization (63%). Potential solutions are chronologic ordering of disparate data types, color coding, and explicit data filtering techniques. The ability to dynamically customize information display for different users and varying clinical scenarios is paramount. CONCLUSION: Electronic chart review of historical data is an important, prevalent, and potentially time-consuming activity among medical ICU clinicians who would benefit from improved information display systems. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Thomas G Kannampallil; Amy Franklin; Rashmi Mishra; Khalid F Almoosa; Trevor Cohen; Vimla L Patel Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Travis K Redd; Julie W Doberne; Daniel Lattin; Thomas R Yackel; Carl O Eriksson; Vishnu Mohan; Jeffrey A Gold; Joan S Ash; Michael F Chiang Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2015-11-05
Authors: Logan Kendall; Predrag Klasnja; Justin Iwasaki; Jennifer A Best; Andrew A White; Sahar Khalaj; Chris Amdahl; Katherine Blondon Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2013-11-16
Authors: Blackford Middleton; Meryl Bloomrosen; Mark A Dente; Bill Hashmat; Ross Koppel; J Marc Overhage; Thomas H Payne; S Trent Rosenbloom; Charlotte Weaver; Jiajie Zhang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Matthew E Nolan; Rizwan Siwani; Haytham Helmi; Brian W Pickering; Pablo Moreno-Franco; Vitaly Herasevich Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Thomas A Lasko; David A Owens; Daniel Fabbri; Jonathan P Wanderer; Julian Z Genkins; Laurie L Novak Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Saif Khairat; Eman Metwally; Cameron Coleman; Elaine James; Samantha Eaker; Thomas Bice Journal: Inform Health Soc Care Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 3.082