Bat-Zion Hose1,2, Peter L T Hoonakker2, Abigail R Wooldridge3, Thomas B Brazelton Iii4, Shannon M Dean4, Ben Eithun5, James C Fackler6, Ayse P Gurses7,8, Michelle M Kelly2,4, Jonathan E Kohler9, Nicolette M McGeorge7, Joshua C Ross10, Deborah A Rusy11, Pascale Carayon1,2. 1. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 2. Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 3. Department of Industrial & Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, United States. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 5. American Family Children's Hospital, University of Wisconsin School of medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 6. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States. 7. Center for Health Care Human Factors, Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States. 8. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine; Department of Health Sciences Informatics, School of Medicine; Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health; Carey Business School; Malone Center for Engineering in Healthcare, Whiting School of Engineering; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States. 9. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 10. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 11. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe physician perceptions of the potential goals, characteristics, and content of the electronic problem list (PL) in pediatric trauma. METHODS: We conducted 12 semistructured interviews with physicians involved in the pediatric trauma care process, including residents, fellows, and attendings from four services: emergency medicine, surgery, anesthesia, and pediatric critical care. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified PL goals, characteristics, and patient-related information from these interviews and the hospital's PL etiquette document of guideline. RESULTS: We identified five goals of the PL (to document the patient's problems, to make sense of the patient's problems, to make decisions about the care plan, to know who is involved in the patient's care, and to communicate with others), seven characteristics of the PL (completeness, efficiency, accessibility, multiple users, organized, created before arrival, and representing uncertainty), and 22 patient-related information elements (e.g., injuries, vitals). Physicians' suggested criteria for a PL varied across services with respect to goals, characteristics, and patient-related information. CONCLUSION: Physicians involved in pediatric trauma care described the electronic PL as ideally more than a list of a patient's medical diagnoses and injuries. The information elements mentioned are typically found in other parts of the patient's electronic record besides the PL, such as past medical history and labs. Future work is needed to evaluate the optimal design of the PL so that users with emergent cases, such as pediatric trauma, have access to key information related to the patient's immediate problems. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
OBJECTIVE: To describe physician perceptions of the potential goals, characteristics, and content of the electronic problem list (PL) in pediatric trauma. METHODS: We conducted 12 semistructured interviews with physicians involved in the pediatric trauma care process, including residents, fellows, and attendings from four services: emergency medicine, surgery, anesthesia, and pediatric critical care. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified PL goals, characteristics, and patient-related information from these interviews and the hospital's PL etiquette document of guideline. RESULTS: We identified five goals of the PL (to document the patient's problems, to make sense of the patient's problems, to make decisions about the care plan, to know who is involved in the patient's care, and to communicate with others), seven characteristics of the PL (completeness, efficiency, accessibility, multiple users, organized, created before arrival, and representing uncertainty), and 22 patient-related information elements (e.g., injuries, vitals). Physicians' suggested criteria for a PL varied across services with respect to goals, characteristics, and patient-related information. CONCLUSION: Physicians involved in pediatric trauma care described the electronic PL as ideally more than a list of a patient's medical diagnoses and injuries. The information elements mentioned are typically found in other parts of the patient's electronic record besides the PL, such as past medical history and labs. Future work is needed to evaluate the optimal design of the PL so that users with emergent cases, such as pediatric trauma, have access to key information related to the patient's immediate problems. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Adam Wright; Joshua Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Stanislav Henkin; David W Bates Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-03-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ashimiyu B Durojaiye; Nicolette M McGeorge; Lisa L Puett; Dylan Stewart; James C Fackler; Peter L T Hoonakker; Harold P Lehmann; Ayse P Gurses Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Adam Wright; Justine Pang; Joshua C Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Allison R Wilcox; Harley Z Ramelson; Louise I Schneider; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Colleen D Acosta; M Kit Delgado; Michael A Gisondi; Amritha Raghunathan; Peter A D'Souza; Gregory Gilbert; David A Spain; Patrice Christensen; N Ewen Wang Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Adam Wright; Justine Pang; Joshua C Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Allison R Wilcox; Karen Sax McLoughlin; Harley Ramelson; Louise Schneider; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Steven Horng; Nathaniel R Greenbaum; Larry A Nathanson; James C McClay; Foster R Goss; Jeffrey A Nielson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Vimla L Patel; Courtney A Denton; Hiral C Soni; Thomas G Kannampallil; Stephen J Traub; Jason S Shapiro Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Eva S Klappe; Florentien J P van Putten; Nicolette F de Keizer; Ronald Cornet Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 2.796