Torbjørn Torsvik1, Børge Lillebo2, Morten Hertzum3. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian EPR Research Centre, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 2. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 3. Department of Information Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records may present laboratory test results in a variety of ways. Little is known about how the usefulness of different visualizations of laboratory test results is influenced by the complex and varied process of clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate how clinicians access and utilize laboratory test results when caring for patients with chronic illness. METHODS: We interviewed 10 attending physicians about how they access and assess laboratory tests when following up patients with chronic illness. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Informants preferred different visualizations of laboratory test results, depending on what aspects of the data they were interested in. As chronic patients may have laboratory test results that are permanently outside standardized reference ranges, informants would often look for significant change, rather than exact values. What constituted significant change depended on contextual information (e.g., the results of other investigations, intercurrent diseases, and medical interventions) spread across multiple locations in the electronic health record. For chronic patients, the temporal relations between data could often be of special interest. Informants struggled with finding and synthesizing fragmented information into meaningful overviews. CONCLUSION: The presentation of laboratory test results should account for the large variety of associated contextual information needed for clinical comprehension. Future research is needed to improve the integration of the different parts of the electronic health record. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records may present laboratory test results in a variety of ways. Little is known about how the usefulness of different visualizations of laboratory test results is influenced by the complex and varied process of clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate how clinicians access and utilize laboratory test results when caring for patients with chronic illness. METHODS: We interviewed 10 attending physicians about how they access and assess laboratory tests when following up patients with chronic illness. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed qualitatively. RESULTS: Informants preferred different visualizations of laboratory test results, depending on what aspects of the data they were interested in. As chronic patients may have laboratory test results that are permanently outside standardized reference ranges, informants would often look for significant change, rather than exact values. What constituted significant change depended on contextual information (e.g., the results of other investigations, intercurrent diseases, and medical interventions) spread across multiple locations in the electronic health record. For chronic patients, the temporal relations between data could often be of special interest. Informants struggled with finding and synthesizing fragmented information into meaningful overviews. CONCLUSION: The presentation of laboratory test results should account for the large variety of associated contextual information needed for clinical comprehension. Future research is needed to improve the integration of the different parts of the electronic health record. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
Authors: Loes M M Braun; Floris Wiesman; H Jaap van den Herik; Arie Hasman; Erik Korsten Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Johanna Viitanen; Hannele Hyppönen; Tinja Lääveri; Jukka Vänskä; Jarmo Reponen; Ilkka Winblad Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Daniel R Murphy; Michael W Smith; Elise Russo; Adam Wright; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jamie S Hirsch; Jessica S Tanenbaum; Sharon Lipsky Gorman; Connie Liu; Eric Schmitz; Dritan Hashorva; Artem Ervits; David Vawdrey; Marc Sturm; Noémie Elhadad Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 4.497
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